A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
Posted August 28th, 2008 by Greg Schneider
image:
For Des and Gill Ford, what is “the Baby?” It is the package of distinctive messages to the world for which, they believe, God raised up the Seventh-day Adventist church. The package includes:
- A premillennial reading of history that shakes humans out of self-satisfied self-righteousness and makes it clear humankind is not progressing but only getting worse.
- A doctrine of the advent that nevertheless gives eternal hope in the face of the despair of human history, a doctrine of the sabbath that mirrors the gospel rest of conscience that gospel believers have at all times.
- A doctrine of the non-immortality of the soul that points to life only in Christ rather than innate human nature and thus points us toward the hope of the Second Advent and Resurrection of the body and away from the spiritism of the New Age.
- The continuation of spiritual gifts in the church apparent in the prophetic ministry of Ellen White.
- A teaching about the body as the temple of God that restrains people with temperaments like his own (he likens himself to hyperthyroid squirrel) from courting premature death.
- A doctrine of stewardship that stands opposed to the growing gap in the world between haves and have-nots.
All these good Adventist distinctives can be grounded in the Gospel and thus help the Seventh-day Adventist church fulfill its God-given special mission to the whole world, or we can pervert them all. Indeed, we have (p. 18). Which brings us to “the Bathwater.” Chief soiler of the water is the Investigative Judgment with all its correlates, such as the year-day principle of interpreting time prophecies, the “historicist” insistence on aligning all time prophecies with specific historical events and institutions--chiefly pagan and Christian Rome, and the twisting of the book of Hebrews to support the rationalizations Adventists produced for the significance of 1844 after the Great Disappointment. Most the chapters of this book aim to dismantle the exegesis and argument that support the Investigative Judgment doctrine. The paramount reason why the church must confess the error of this doctrine and forsake it, says Des, is that it mutes the gospel and undermines assurance of salvation.
Another component of the dirt in the bathwater, however, is the institutional defensiveness and pride of power seen in SDA hierarchy and church committees as they dealt with Des and Gill and with so many other church workers and lay members before, during, and after the “lynching” at Glacier View. Lynching is my word, but it is an idea that Des clearly implies by likening Glacier View to trials of black men in the South (p. 39). Some of the most arresting material in this book is in the essays by Gill that chronicle and analyze the Glacier View conference and the events surrounding it.
Indeed the stormiest emotional moment this reviewer had was while reading Gill’s mention of the insinuation and slander against her and her marriage to Des that were contained in the rumors charging her with being a willing go-between in a nefarious collusion between Des and Robert Brinsmead. The story made me furious. My reaction requires a bit of autobiographical unpacking in the interests of honest disclosure.
Des and I arrived at Pacific Union College the same year, 1977, and I was witness to the processes that led up to Glacier View. While my own theology differed, and differs still, from both Des and his perfectionist attackers, I have always believed Des more theologically right than his enemies, and far and away more ethical and charitable than they in the conduct of the controversies of those years. I also watched mentors and friends in the PUC faculty lose their careers, and in some instances their marriages, in the maelstrom that engulfed the PUC campus. I mourn the loss of these people not simply for reasons of personal friendship, but because of lost opportunities to pursue our callings jointly in conversations that might have built up the Seventh-day Adventist church and community.
Although I have not communicated with them for years, I count Des and Gill as friends in both the personal and professional sense and regret that we have not had opportunity to pursue our own conversations. It is as colleagues and friends that I use their first names in this review, and I would have all readers understand that this usage stems from friendly regard and affection and intends no disrespect. This point is all the more important to make because I am about to dwell on some disagreements I have with my friends.
When Des and Gill call repeatedly for the church to confess its sins against its members and to make things right with the families whose lives were disrupted by the persecutions of church administrators, I can only say “So be it.” I hold back my amens, however, when Des generalizes wildly about the consequences of church persecution: “college attendances in the West have been hard to sustain (particularly the ministerial trainees),” many of our colleges have tremendous financial difficulty with PUC in particular in such dire straits as to contemplate selling its land, the church mission program is in decline, church members in the West are declining in zeal. Des grants there may be many reasons for these things, but “it is correct from a biblical viewpoint to suggest that one of these reasons is unconfessed wrongs” (p. 122).
My response? The church should apologize for Glacier View and its aftermath because it defended false exegesis, pursued dishonest and arbitrary procedures, and unnecessarily harmed people’s careers and livelihoods. It did wrong, and therefore apology and restitution are the right things to do. To suggest that doing right will somehow ameliorate institutional problems that are at best distantly related to the wrongdoing clouds ethical vision and encourages superstitious thinking about cause and effect in human affairs.
As a side note, I feel compelled to say about PUC’s proposed land sale that this kind of stewardship of resources in order to build endowment is several generations overdue. Had PUC been building endowment in the decades prior to the 1970s, it would not have been in the politically vulnerable position that forced college administration to agree to the disastrous “study leave” for Des that led to Glacier View. We would have been much better equipped to protect academic integrity in general and Des’s rights to academic freedom in particular.
The kind of analytical overreaching to which I am reacting seems endemic to Des’s view of the world. The Lutheran reading of the Pauline gospel is the key to everything for Des. Failure to embrace and proclaim this gospel explains why the SDA church creeps along, moribund among the well-educated of the first world and winning souls primarily among the poorly educated in both first and third worlds (p. 3). Only by way of this forensic vision of justification can one be assured of God’s acceptance and thus accept both self and others. “Until I can accept myself, I am uneasy, and I am accident prone, and I’m nasty whenever it suits me” (p. 29) This theological riff on the popular psychology of self-acceptance also explains why Adventist legalism has produced a church full of people without assurance of salvation, hence without joy, and hence without real motivation to win souls for Christ (p. 34). And this failure of Adventism is just a special case of the failure of the whole of the Christian church for two millennia. Failure to preach this gospel clearly and consistently explains why humanity still waits for the establishment of the Kingdom so long after Christ’s humiliation on the cross (pp. 103-104). Failure to preach this gospel in foreign missions, furthermore, produces indoctrination rather than conversion, and failure truly to convert “the heathen” explains things like the complicity of Seventh-day Adventist Hutus in the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsis (pp. 131-36).
Like the proverbial hedgehog who knows one great thing, in contrast to the fox who knows many things, Des knows one great theological thing: the forensic, penal substitutionary metaphor for the atonement. He is as nimble and creative as he is dogged and single-minded in promoting this outlook. As one whose psychology works pretty much the way Des assumes everyone’s must, I have found his preaching and teaching inspiring and indispensable. I am aware of other friends, however, whose minds and hearts worked in ways that made Des’s outlook feel extremely threatening. Des himself notes in passing that when the SDA Bible Commentary adopted positions that aligned better with the theology he favors, the then-head of the Australasian Division cried, “‘They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him’” (p. 95). This seems like a sincere cry of the heart that might prompt us to see that the Lord’s presence and grace comes to people by many avenues, including routes that are incomprehensible, even repugnant, to us. (I have recently made my own effort to make sense of Adventist perfectionist hearts and minds in a lecture invited by the Loma Linda School of Religion.)
With regard to situations like Rwanda, furthermore, I doubt that very many African Adventists confront the same kinds of problems with guilt and self-acceptance that I do as an individualistic westerner and direct heir to the culture that Luther and Calvin were so pivotal in forming. I suspect that many Rwandan SDAs heard and understood, at some level, that “one does not have to be good to be saved, but that one must be saved to be good” (p. 134). However, suspended in webs of kinship and clan whose meanings are overlaid and twisted by generations of colonial European exploitation that sought to divide and conquer, it seems apparent that they did not hear that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, Hutu nor Tutsi. In short, I do not think that western individualistic models of the atonement, forensic or perfectionist, speak to the kinds of problems apparent in the Rwandan genocide. It is humbling to note, furthermore, that Muslim mosques were, on the whole, safer places for Tutsis to be during the genocide than Christian churches. It seems that in that time and place, Mohammed’s message of the Ummah, the House of Islam that transcends all tribal loyalties and brings peace by way of submission to Allah, was more effective in practice than any Christian message.
My point, not at all an original one, is that there are many ways to make sense of Christ, His life and teachings, His death and resurrection. Any of them can be a means of transforming grace, simply empty words, or worse. The absolute hegemony that Des claims for the Lutheran Pauline gospel will not, in my judgment, withstand scrutiny of scripture or history. I write these criticisms with reticence because I am loath to have Des and Gill disappointed in me and even more reluctant to cause them any pain. I write also with a rueful smile, knowing that if Des and Gill were once again my colleagues in a free atmosphere where we could carry on the conversations I have wished for, he would badger me relentlessly, with all the energy of that hyperthyroid squirrel whose temperament he says he shares, to change my mind and adopt his hedgehog’s vision of the faith. What a menagerie I’d have to cope with! Nevertheless, far better that lively, exasperating zoo than the lifeless, anxiety-filled void that haunted us for so many years in the aftermath of Glacier View.
I celebrate, therefore, the news I have learned from the Spectrum blog in the last couple of days as I have been writing this review: Des will be delivering a lecture on Saturday, September 6, at the Loma Linda Campus Hill church at 3:00 pm. You can read details as well as some “buzz” from the blogs here.
I celebrate also the fact that a group calling itself the “Good News Tour” will be at Loma Linda University Church that same week-end presenting messages based on alternative metaphors for the gospel. You can read more about it here.
Let there be civility, energy, more light than heat, and let everyone be persuaded in the integrity of their own minds.
You can purchase For the Sake of the Gospel, Throw out the Bathwater but keep the Baby here
Greg Schneider writes from Angwin, CA where he is a professor of religion and social science at Pacific Union College.
Search
- Real Cartoonists on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- Donna Haerich on Mt. Ellis on the Brink of Winning Big
- Elaine Nelson on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- Steve Moran on Mt. Ellis on the Brink of Winning Big
- Bonnie Dwyer on Mt. Ellis on the Brink of Winning Big
- Donna Haerich on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- victor on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- Andre Reis on Hate Speech?
- Your Friend on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- Your Friend on Hate Speech?
Comments
Thanks for this thoughtful review. I love this thought especially, "My point, not at all an original one, is that there are many ways to make sense of Christ, His life and teachings, His death and resurrection. Any of them can be a means of transforming grace, simply empty words, or worse."
I wish that you and Des Ford were still colleagues at Pacific Union College who could engage in regular, friendly debate about such topics. I was just a young child when Glacier View happened, but I still sense deep wounds from those who witnessed it and its ripple effects. I wonder what it would take for an official apology?
I hope Des Ford's talk next weekend gets posted for everyone to access online. Sounds like it's going to be a full weekend in Loma Linda!
I enjoyed attending Des Ford's Sabbath School class in the Science Complex at PUC. I also enjoyed taking classes from Erwin R. Gane. These two Australians did not see eye to eye on much of anything! I recall Dr. Gane laughing at Geoffery Paxton's 'Shaking of Adventism' reference to his view of justification as being 'Roman Catholic'. I attended the infamous Oct. 27, 1979 Forum lecture in Irwin Hall titled 'Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?'
What impressed me about Ford was how much he could remember and how fast he could think and speak. He could make people look and sound like idiots...even when they were right! But then he had a doctorate in rhetoric(in the writings of Paul)! He articulated the problems quite well...but I mostly disagreed with his proposed 'solutions'. I think Ford meant well...but if someone was trying to throw a monkey-wrench into the Adventist machine...I don't think they could have done it any better than Des. And the church did a hatchet-job on Des in a Kangaroo Court. Two wrongs did not make a right...it made a horrible mess.
Gill is quite a scholar. Has anyone read 'The Soteriological Implications of the Human Nature of Christ'? I wonder how much of Des's thinking can be traced to Gill? Did Des ever publish a book on the Teachings of Jesus? If such a book exists, I would imagine that he would use the grammatical-historical method...and that he would be careful to exegete...rather than just simply homelitically applying passages. Dr. Ford's mentor at the University of Manchester, F.F. Bruce, wrote an interesting book, 'The Hard Sayings of Jesus'.
In the final analysis, Ford proposed simplistic legalism as the remedy for complex legalism. It's sort of like proposing self-exaltation as the remedy for self-degradation. Neither one works. The 'Desire of Ages' read from cover to cover seems to be a good place to find the solution to the tussle over Eschatology, Christology and Soteriology in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
I doubt that the most effective way to enable a group of Christians to improve their beliefs is to attack their convictions and demand that they apologize for holding them. I think that we can anticipate that this approach will prompt defensive reactions that will only make things worse. Far better to let outmoded ideas die from neglect and gradually replace them with better ones, so I think!
Dave
Firstly, it is interesting that the Fords still think that there is a baby worth not throwing out with the bath water when it comes to Adventism.
Secondly, I do not think that the lack of the assurance of salavation is quite so prevalent now... especially amongst the generations that have come to fruition post Glacier View. In fact having led out in youth Sabbath School classes the controversies that raged then are not even on their mind map, being virtually irrelevant(admittedly this is a Northern European perspective.)....this does however back up David's outmoded/let them die/be replaced modus operandi.
Well Done. Tom
I read Greg's review to Des, and we both enjoyed it very much because clearly written with love. The Baby in the title is Jesus, not a package of SDA views, but I can see why Greg thinks this. Jesus is the heart of prophetic intent, and he remains when views about interpretation inevitably change. The book is not an attack and a demand from our viewpoint, but once it's out there it will no doubt bring comments like David Larson's. Readers should remember that it is nearly 30 years since Des was defrocked and we have only now written such a book. We have always understood that the church has the right to hire and fire whoever it chooses, and that administrators were in a hard place at Glacier View. They had our sympathy then and now. We are not desiring, courting or expecting an apology to us personally, but for others who were treated worse than us. We do have the right to explain our viewpoint. We have received a tide of love and goodwill from many in the SDA church and it is reciprocated from us. We have also had a barrage of slurs, misrepresentations and lies from some. I urge readers to love your enemies as Jesus asked us to and as Des has consistently tried to do. These blogs could be sometimes be more Christian and not a medium for people to express thinly veiled hostility (not speaking specifically of this particular blog). To orthodoxymoron, I occasionally dip my foot into the sea of theology and write something, maybe once a decade. But I was Des's student and he hasn't learned a thing from me. I knew Des's first wife and the two of them were/are two of the most innocent, Christ-centered and dedicated people on this earth. Many people know this to be true. Des is 80 next year and you'll be glad to know he intentionally speaks slower. This will probably be his last visit to the USA. He will be speaking about the very objections Greg raises.
"Far better to let outmoded ideas die from neglect and gradually replace them with better ones, so I think!"
I agree - however people who want to hang onto these outmoded ideas keep getting space in the Review and in the Lesson Pamphlet and in the evangelistic presentations.
So there are three choices
(a) ignore them - but the ignorant masses of new members don't, and are swayed, and so perpertuate the ideas
(b) tell them to stop pushing these outmoded ideas - but then it looks (to the swayed masses) like the evil trying to suppress the righteous
(c) tell them why they are wrong - which hardly corresponds to "neglect"
In short, neglecting weeds won't result in a weed-free garden
/Bevin
Hi Gill,
We met years ago around 1986 when I visited you and Des at your home in Auburn, Calif. Thanks for your comments.
My wife and I plan to fly from Florida to the "promise land" of LLU to hear Des.My wife has not been there and we will also visit my dad's grave in Brea, Calif. I haven't seen Des since 2000. I would like to see him as he is approaching 80 and as you said may not return to the US.
I love and respect Des and his integrity and his classical Protestant message on the atonement and RBF/JBF...an outmoded idea if and only when the church apostatizes...when it says "peace and safety" without the foundation of the cross of Christ.
Would you ask him if he has this book? I would like to bring it to him as a gift.
"The Glory of the Atonement", Hill and James,IVP, 495pp.2004.
Blessings to Both of you!
pat travis
It's great to see you as part of this conversation, Gill! You know, last weekend I had a group of friends over for lunch. We are all early 30s-ish and have/are going through big questions about Adventism. The topic of Glacier View and Des Ford came up (along with Ron Numbers and the whole tumultuous 70s/early 80s).
I found it telling that several of them--lifelong Adventists--had no idea what the sanctuary doctrine was and how it was unique to Adventists (or why other Christians take issue with it). These were very well-educated people. I've actually noticed this trend in conversation with many other Adventists as well. I find it striking that so much was made of this 30 years ago, yet, in essence, I think a "bad" idea really has started to just die out.
I'll look forward to checking out this book!
I had intended to leave this forum alone but I find myself getting sucked back in by topics that are too personal for me to simply walk away from. This is one of them.
I was among those who left the SDA church in disgust over the way it chose to deal with Des Ford and the issues he raised. Today I would agree more with Dr Schneider than Doctor Ford, but to me it was and is about more than theology.
To me Glacier View was the loss of innocence. As a convert to Adventism I had bought into the idea of Adventist exeptionalism and I really believed that this church was a movement whose loadstone was "the truth." What shocked me was seeing my church just as committed to its traditions as any other denomination, and then some. When push came to shove, exegesis meant nothing. Administrators of no particular virtue (Victor, I know...)destroyed the careers of dedicated saints without compunction.
And worst of all was the betrayal by the mainstream academics within in the church, exemplary scholars who knew that Des Ford was arguing from an unassailable position exegetically when he took on the dogmas of 1844. Instead of saying so, they took Des to task (mostly correctly, if my memory serves me well) for views of his that strayed into more speculative arenas, and created thereby the impression that they supported the orthodox position on 1844, when they did no such thing.
Having sold out, they pleaded later that they had no idea the church leaders would act the way they did. They were not the first ones to wash their hands of dishonorable deeds.
Maybe this is the way churches operate. Maybe the Christian faith can justify such behavior but I decided I wanted no part of it. I left the SDA church and I left the world of faith.
I did not even back then insist that the church officially endorse Des Ford's views, even on such patently unbiblical doctrines as the 1844 dogmas, but I did expect it to remain open-minded and respectful in situations where tradtion and exegesis butted heads.
The problem at Glacier View was not Neal Wilson nor Des Ford.
It was all those not so innocent by-standers who just held the coats. Then they tried to make up by Consultation I and II. Now more than ever theology is decided by administrators not Scholars. Spectrum is a voice but not a power or a change agent.
Mainly the "lunatic fringe" read and posts according to the G.C. even Cliff has bowed out.
There is no future in rocking the boat. Edward Heppenstall was recruited as a big gun to fight for the right! He ended up by being marginalized primarily by the Review staff.
So we spend hours on "self abuse" and other fringe issues--the core of salvation seems to be off limits. Tom
My wife and some friends heard Des Ford the last time he shared the podium with Ray Cottrell in Loma Linda. I was away on a mission, to Africa, then. I'll be in Campus Hill next Sabbath.
Gillian,
I remember translating your Pilgrim's Progess spoof back in the day, and how I admired your facility with words. In the early 1980s we also met once in Norway when I translated for Des, overlooking the Tyrifjord lake. When Adventism comes up with a hall of fame, celebrating people of inegrity, I would like to see the two of you inducted.
I'd be interested if you could get Des' reaction to my main concern with his insistence on the be-all of the forensic view of the atonement. My concern is that it comes close to theological perfectionism, the idea that salvation is a function of theological perspicacity. I can see that the various views of the atonement can affect how people sleep at night, but does it go beyond that?
Secondly, about the forensic view itself: Can it be called forgiveness of sins if restitution or sacrifice is required to affect reconciliation? Isn't that a quid pro quo concept of forgiveness?
Like Aage, I and many others left the Adventist church when we realized there was no future for honest exegesis and integrity. "Saving" the institutional church was the most important and administrators, barely able to even discuss theological issues, were the ones who made all decisions. "Staying by" would be an admission that integrity is no longer important for both myself and an institution to which I belonged. I have never regretted that decision: Truthfully, on occasions such as this it reminds me even more that the right decision was made.
Joselito,
Come by next weekend and say Hi and anyone else on this blog. It would be nice to associate a face with a name. Barring a huricaine that keeps us in Florida We'll be there.
I am an "ole white guy" with a goatee with a beautiful Filipino wife of 13 yrs...this description will likely cut down the search time!
regards,
pat
PS. Aage, thanks for your 8:08 first post...I feel you have correctly grasped the situation even if you now differ from Des. This is all the more why I respect Des' integrity!
Aage and Elaine,
I'm glad that you both stick around despite your distaste for a lot of the mud that clings to our Adventist roots. And as a pastor friend of mine put it so well, while mud definitely clings to our roots, upon examination we often discover things there that are also nourishing and life-giving.
But whatever the case, your contributions add a great deal to the conversations that happen here, and I hope you'll keep sticking around!
Pat - I had to read what you said twice! At first glance, I got the impression that you were married to a wife of thirteen years (that's really young!!). But on the second pass, I gathered that you've been married to your wife for 13 years (congratulations on that!)
Tom, I’ve always wanted to be a fringe element. Pat, I don’t believe Des has that book, thanks he’d be glad of it. Elaine, Des is going to speak on forensic justification when he comes, and there’ll be a DVD later if you can’t go; and an outline he’s prepared ahead for those who attend. Des knows there’s a variety of salvation metaphors, but justification is by far the most prominent. He’ll be speaking about the NPP, the moral influence theory and effective justification amongst other things. Someone else asked about had Des written a book on Jesus, yes: Jesus Only, came out just before the Baby book. Hi Auge, keep the faith. There was a lot to Glacier View; the scholars did object to Des’s being defrocked. Milton Hook’s bio of Des (sorry for the ad) is a reflection of what happened and matches our point of view.
Perhaps time to admit that there really is no baby in that dirty bathwater?
Jared,
My second marriage and we have been married 13 yrs. Glad you asked.
pat
After Dr. Ford's Investigative Judgment presentation, what if the bretheren had taken him out of the classroom and pulpit, without firing or defrocking him, and given him a two-year project to work with the religion department at PUC, to come up with a book similar to 'Questions On Doctrine' to deal constructively with the difficulties raised in his presentation? Des could have kept his office, salary, and home. I doubt that there would have been a media circus, or that so many people would have been fired or would have left the church. At the end of this two-year period, he could have resumed teaching and preaching...and promoting his new book. But wait...that would have made sense.
"Perhaps time to admit that there really is no baby in that dirty bathwater."
After so long a time, the water's been so muddied up, no one could find the baby if he looked!
Wow, it is indeed a pleasant reminisce to read the review and comments above. I am also a PUC alumnus and was at the infamous Oct. 27, 1979 Forum lecture in Irwin Hall on the Investigative Judgment. I can still hear the thunderous standing ovation Des was given at the end. I knew I had become part of something very significant in Adventism.
I can remember Wayne Jude giving a small talk before it started and remarking "how enough (cassette) tape would be produced from this meeting that would eventually strangle many of us". How ultimately prophetic he was.
I was also a theology major at the time and eventually changed my major due to how I was seeing Des treated.
On a humorous note - I took a class from Dr. Gane and during a lecture a loud car roared by, and Dr. Gane obviously annoyed, made the comment - "what was that?". A sharp witted Bill Truby came back with an immediate reply "I think it must have been a Ford" - from which the class burst into laughter.
Adventism was altered that day, whether it was for good or not, I guess depends on the individual. The fact that Adventism in North America has lost many of its educated class is unfortunate. Time will tell.
Don Barton: very good report of PUC back in 1979.
I am also an alumni (1982) of PUC and attended Dr. Ford's forum. An amazing thing happened immediately afterwards when Glen Mallory and I were casually talking about the forum. Kevin Paulsen came up to us and I thought "Oh, no, he is going to attack us and have one of his theological arguments over the issues raised in the forum." Instead he said, "Well, I guess the Lord expects me to love - even you guys!" This was the last thing we ever expected Kevin to say. I personally felt a subdued atmosphere over everyone after the forum, and I attribute that to the work of Spirit of God - when Jesus and the Bible were uplifted.
There were relatively few students that I could talk to about those themes. Most of them had a response like Ron Numbers: "I don't know, and I don't care."
To end on a joke like Don: Dr. Eric Syme, who gave "the rebuttal" of Des Ford's forum (or it turned out to be support) was a debater par excellence, and he did get a bit of a hard time with a theological major called Tom - who had gained the reputation as being the "class critic." So finally Syme had enough of it, and appeared one day to class in "cowboy" boots.
Of course, the first thing that happened was Tom put up his hand as usual, and asked Dr. Syme the question: "Dr. Syme, how come you came to class wearing those cowboy boots?" Syme replied: "They are for kicking critics!" The whole class roared in laughter.
Greg,
I agree with you! In our discussion, we must make sure we generate "more light than heat." We need to join Al Gore and do something about global warming!
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
Aage,
Good question! After reading your comments posted on 29 August 2008 at 9:32, I decided to check my dictionary and discovered that it defines "forgiveness" as the willingness to forego the right to seek payment for a debt.
If you get a speeding ticket, and your friend pays for your fine. Would the judge have any right to say to you: "I decided to forgive you for your transgression"? If God demanded full payment for sin, then forgiveness makes no sense.
I wonder whether Des has considered the implications of the following explanation for the cross found in the book Education page 263:
*********
"Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but the suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation do our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God."
*********
It seems to me that this might be the clearest and most logical explanation ever written about the atonement. From this statement, we can deduct that God did not demand payment in terms of suffering required from the Son of God. God's suffering was the natural result of God's love for the people he had created.
When a parent is confronted with a rebellious child and offers his forgiveness, there is no legal requirement that the parent must suffer more than what he already suffered as the natural result of his/her love for the child.
Why did God allow the death of Jesus? In order to provide a window through wich we might understand the pain and suffering the Lord was subjected to as a result of sin and rebellion.
There is another statement by Ellen White I once read which went like this: "The cross was not a legal maneuver to balance the books of heaven." There was nothing to balance. Sin resulted in suffering both on earth and in heaven.
Before his death, Jesus said to his disciples: "You are clean by the words that I have spoken to you." He did not say, "You will be clean once I have paid the price for sin." Likewise, he told the paralitic, "Your sins are forgiven," and not "Your sins will be forgiven in the event I get killed."
This view of the cross agrees with what we find in the book of Revelation where there is a reference to the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." When did God suffer as a result of sin? From the beginning!
The Bible states that "In all their aflictions, he was aflicted." This means to me that by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God had suffered more than enouth, not as a legalistic imposition, but as the natural result of his love.
Seen in this manner, the cross ceases to be an event in history, and becomes a process which started with Lucifer's rebellion in heaven, and will end when sin and rebellion is eradicated from the universe. What do we do then with the other theories of atonement? They simply become metaphors for a reality which surpassess those symbols.
When Jesus told his followers that they needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood, they were offended. The Lord then explained this symbol to them: "The flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I have spoken, they are spirit and they are life." [John 6:63] The power to save is not in the blood of Jesus, but rather in his words. His words created the universe and granted life to Lazarus. Anything else is mere symbols and metaphor.
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
The pain I feel over Glacier View has not gone away and I fear it never will. The church I grew up in, had committed my life to and thought I knew vanished before my eyes.
I enjoyed this generous review of Des' latest book. There is little doubt in my own mind that Des was a prophetic voice sent to Adventism in the late twentieth century. We were so busy building memorials to an earlier prophet that we stoned this one.
One question I have on the review: Christ can be understood in many ways? What then of the Pauline insistence that there is only one gospel? Even if an angel from heaven preached another let him be accursed. Perhaps the real question is whether or not what Des teaches harmonizes with the biblical witness, and not whether or not it is one of any number of acceptable gospels in Adventism
Richard
As an “old timer,” a PUC alumni from the 1950’s, I appreciated this sensitive book review by Dr, Schneider and also the many good comments above. Having lived through and closely followed all the events since the 1950’s, I believe the present generation generally knows very little about the roots of the present SDA “Identity Crisis” --or even realizes that there is such a crisis! I sat in theology class at PUC and listened to R. A. Anderson defend his GC Committee’s book, Questions On Doctrine, during the time M. L. Andreasen was sending his Letters to the Churches opposing it. I personally talked with Al Hudson when he published Wieland and Short’s 1888 Re-Examined. I have never agreed with Wieland and Short’s continuing call for SDA corporate repentance for 1888 because I believe we can only repent for our own personal sins and errors. But I do believe that if we personally accept and perpetuate our father’s sins and errors, then we also personally share their guilt and need to repent of what we have made our own sins and errors.
I attended Des Ford’s climactic Fresno Debate with Dr. William Shea, and I talked with Des and Gillian Ford several times at GNU in Auburn. Gillian helped my late wife, Faith, and many other women suffering hormonal problems, and Des helped me get a copy of Dr. Kai Arasola’s book, The End of Historicism, from Europe, which was a great help to me in my long research project into SDA exegetical and theological roots which will soon be published in my book, "William Miller’s Enigmatic Time Setting Theory and the Seventh-day Adventist Identity Crisis."
I agree with the above comment of Aage Rendalen that “tradition and exegesis butted heads”. Tradition is a universal problem for all churches and religions. The “traditions of the elders” was at the heart of Christ’s conflicts with the Jewish leaders of His day.
He told them they made the Law of God of “none effect” by their traditions. But they stubbornly clung to them rather than accepting Him as their Messiah and Savior.
The Word of God vs. tradition was also a core issue in the Reformation. And SDA false traditions are also at the heart of the current SDA “Identity Crisis.” Adventism largely took over and rehashed Miller’s chronology and exegesis of Daniel 8:14, and then, after the Great Disappointment, through the Edson-Crosier-White-Bates nexus, reinterpreted the Disappointment as a spritualized "heavenly" "coming of Christ to His Father" rather than a literal earthly coming as Miller predicted. Their spiritualized reinterpretation soon developed into the Investigative Judgment doctrine in the late 1850’s. But what is not well known (or admitted by those who know) is that Miller himself assumed as his exegetical “keys” two contemporary Christian traditions of his era: (1) the so-called “day=year principle” that had come down from the Catholic exegete Joachim of Flores in the Middle Ages, and (2) the idea that the 70 Weeks and the 2300 “days” began at the same time around 457 BC. Thus, through “Father Miller,” these two “key” false “traditions of the elders” were carried over into SDA 1844 theology and are still being perpetuated today in the SDA 1980 “Dallas Creed” of 27 (now 28) Points of Fundamental Belief which was largely a corporate reaction to counteract Des Ford’s PUC challenge to the SDA traditional 1844 theology. But how can Adventism effectively fulfill Christ’s Gospel Commission and preach the “everlasting Gospel” of Rev. 14:6-12 when it stubbornly clings like the Jews to its traditional unbiblical “unique” 1844 theology as its chief “identity factor” --rather than obeying Christ’s parable and digging down to Christ the “solid Rock” and making Him our sole foundation? The answer is --when Adventism practices these words we have long sung in our churches, “On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all else is sinking sand”?
We can’t repent for “Father Miller,” or even for our early SDA pioneers. But if we personally accept and continue to perpetuate (actively or passively) their erroneous traditions we essentially repeat the errors of the Jews in Christ’s day and the basic Catholic error of the Council of Trent in their Counter Reformation, and share their guilt and need for repentance and reformation. It is a very rare thing to see a corporate church body repent and reform itself, but the Worldwide Church of God recently did it after Armstrong’s death, and Adventism can learn many lessons from them, and the Mormon’s can also. See my Book Review at http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0758605277/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_2?%5Fe...
about the parallels between Adventism and Mormonism. But as I said, tradition is a universal problem for all churches and religions, and each individual must face up to this problem individually before they can effectively do it in a corporate way.
---Arlin Baldwin
Arlin,
Thanks for your timely comments. Tradition seems more powerfull than biblical truth. Ellen White told us that age will not transform error into truth, but we think it will. I read Ford's book about Daniel 8:14 several times, and it seems to me that it is crystal clear that the way we have been teaching the Investigative Judgment doctrine has no solid biblical basis, but we persist in holding to this tradition.
I used to give Bible studies, and it seemed to me that I was teaching in harmony with the clear understanding of biblical prophecy, until I read Des' book. It opened my eyes to the undeniable fact that I was mistaken and was equating my church's tradition with biblical revelation. I was convinced that the belief in the sacredness of tradition was the exclusive prerogative of Catholics, until Des opened my eyes to my deception.
Des and Gill,
I have a question for you. I believe in what you describe as the apotelesmatic principle in the interpretation of biblical predictions. I believe that Daniel 8 was given for Daniel's people, and that any ulterior application of said prophecies had a secondary character. This means that the focus of said prophecy should have always been the Jewish race. It also means that our traditional arguments that Daniel 8 had nothing to do with the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes misses the main objective of said prediction.
You argued quite effectively in your book that, if Jesus' predictions in Matthew 24 had a double application--first to the fate of Jerusalem, and eventually to the end of the world--then it follows that other prophetical revelations might have likewise multiple applications.
Now my question to you: Have you ever considered the tollowing interesting interpretation of Daniel 8? The action in said chapter starts with the he-goat, which points to Alexander the Great, who in 334 B.C. defeated the persians. Why not use said historical date as a starting point for the 2300 days prophecy? Applying the year-day principle, if we allow for the lack of a zero year between B.C. and D.D., we arrive at 1967.
Did anything significant take place for Daniel's race in said year? Of course, the Six-Day Arab-Jewish War, which resulted in the access to the sacred wall of the Jerusalen Temple, and to the city of Jerusalem. Could it be that this is one of the multiple applications of this prophetical period? Could it also be that in the future there might be another partial fulfillment of this prophecy?
By the way, I am indebted for this theory to Dr. Dick Koobs of Loma Linda, who was in turn indebted for the same to John Newton the theologian, the brother of Isaac Newton, who made this prediction three centuries ago.
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
Who has asked for the date of the Book of Daniel?
Most scholars agree that it was not written until ca 160 B.C. If that is so, then it was NOT a prophetic book, but a narrative of past events. Writing about events that have already occurred, yet positing them as future is an entire world of difference.
Some of the reasons given for a later date:
1. In 3:5 the name of one of the musical instruments is not only Greek but found with this meaning nowhere in Greek literature before the 2nd cent. B.C.
2. A large section of the book (2:4b-7:28) has come down, not in Hebrew, but in Aramaic, which the exiles learned to speak in Babylon and then became the people's tongue in the postexilic period, continuing through NT times.
3. The name "Chaldeans" is also used in a special sense it did not acquire till long after the Exile (1:3-5).
4. The fact that the book in the Hebrew Bible is placed among the Writings rather than the Prophets indicates a late date; if it had been in existence before ca. 200 B.C. it probably would have been included rather among the Prophets.
5. Writing ca. 180 Jeshua ben Sira lists the heroes of the faith from Enoch, Noah, and Abraham through Nehemiah (Ecclus. 44-49) but makes no mention of Daniel, evidently because he does not know of the book about him. OTOH, Daniel and his 3 companions are mentioned in 1 Macc. 2:59-60, probably composed late in the 2nd cent and fragments of the book apparently produced ca. the same time have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
All this supporting evidence in the visions pointing to almost the precise year in which the book was composed: It was most likely on Dec 6, 167 B.C. that the temple was desecrated by the erection of an altar to Zeus (1 Macc. 1:54; 11 Macc. 6:2-5). In Daniel this event is referred to specifically as the "abomination that makes desolate" and is alluded to a number of times. Although the early reconsecration of the temple and resumption of worship is foretold, the prediction is too vague to have been written after the actual rededication under Judas Maccabeus, which occurred 3 years later (1 Macc. 4:36-58). Thus the book must have been written within this 3-year period, probably near the end of it.
What evidence is given for the earlier dating of Daniel that must be used for it to be prophetic?
Elaine
Of course your right on the date of the writing of Daniel.
Des was trying to throw the brethern a life preserved. The
brethern knew it wouldn't hold even the baby up let alone the Church. So the issue was the Church or Des. The end was no surprise. The details make a good story. I imagine a few are left out.
Institutionalism is a crazy quilt.
Now a story: A dental researcher friend of mine, contacted the senior researcher at a major gum manufacturer to suggest added floride ion to gum to inhibit dental caries. The researcher replied. You don't understand my job. My job is trying to find ways to take things out of gum, not put more in!
Neal understood his job too well!
We all learned a lot, dispite the pain. Tom
"Chief soiler of the water is the Investigative Judgment with all its correlates, such as the year-day principle of interpreting time prophecies, the “historicist” insistence on aligning all time prophecies with specific historical events and institutions--chiefly pagan and Christian Rome, and the twisting of the book of Hebrews to support the rationalizations Adventists produced for the significance of 1844 after the Great Disappointment."
How can anyone serve as a religion professor and conscientiously accept his pay while railing against fundamental SDA teachings? I have nothing against the man -- it's the principle of the situation.
Your Friend
You must not have read or heard anything Des wrote or said.
There was no railing about it. It was an alternative understanding of the passage--in keeping with the literal translation. An understanding the Church found unacceptable regardless of its accuracy and softness. The Church did the only thing it could do. It "killed" the messenger. Tom
I lived through the time of Glacier-View as a SDA and I felt that Des got off too light. His exegesis, if you can dare call it, that was deeply flawed. The Investigative Judgment is an absolutely essential part of the SDA theology and his attack struck at the very heart of Adventism and especially the Gospel of Jesus. If you don't like the Investigative Judgment, fine. Have the guts to go start you own church and leave the SDA church alone. SDA's believe in the Investigative Judgment. If you don't believe in it, you are not an SDA. Get out. Get over it. Your divisiveness is not wanted.
I don't know if others treated Him as well as they should have. But that is irrelevant to the truth or error of his teaching. And only children run around crying that Bobby hit them. Grow up.
allenroyboy
Certainly a forthright Christian Viewpoint: Next time write it in capital letters--so us blinded ones can really see it.
Tom
"Allenroyboy" sounds like the name is a perfect fit: Your viewpoint is as childish as any seen here.
Fortunately, it is not left to you to decide who should "get over it" or decide what is "divisive." Has someone in the G.C. given you the authority to speak for the official church of what should and should not be spoken about?
Please qualify your statements with relevant credentials; otherwise, you have no more nor less authority to speak than anyone here. Your "Christian Love" is most apparent.
I appreciate the chance to hear the perspectives of people who were close to this matter, their perspectives and how their lives were changed. I was two years old in 1979 and am now contemplating church employment and have some interest in what lessons may be learned. Arlin's point that we cannot apologize for others, but can avoid repeating the same mistakes is well-taken.
I hope the recent command to "Get out." will not attract undue attention and drown out an otherwise constructive conversation.
To the generations that shared your experience, thank you.
Blake Laing
For a bit of lengthy lightheartedness, let me quote a Baptist minister by the name of John Dowling, commenting in 1840 on William Miller's use of 457 BC as the starting point for the 1844 Dan 8:14 prophecy. (Cliff note version: Essentially he argues that in 457 BC there was no Roman empire, whether secular or sacred to kick off the 'little horn' prophecy, and he argues that the 70 weeks and the 2300 can't possible start at the same time).
"The reader is already aware that I do not regard the 'two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings' as prophetical days or years. As however, some of my readers may suppose that years are possibly intended by the 2300 days, I shall proceed to show that even upon the supposition that this is the case, Mr. Miller is still egregiously in error, in the date of their commencement, and consequently, in that of their termination...."
"Now let the reader observe..., Mr. M. places the commencement of these 2300 days (years) in the year B.C. 457, that is, more than a century before the he-goat or the four notable horns or the little horn had any existence! Is it not the very height of absurdity, to fix the date of the beginning of these calamities, (which the prophecy says were to occur in the latter time of the four kingdoms which sprung from Alexander's) more than a century before Alexander was born, and 126 years before the establishment of Alexander's Grecian empire?
To express this in the symbolical language of the prophecy, Is it not somewhat extraordinary, that this 'little horn' (whatever was meant by it) should spring out of one of the four horns upon the head of the goat, more than a century before the goat had any existence?
And yet this is the absurdity upon which Mr.M. builds his whole theory of the coming of Christ in 1843...
If I were to bring forward any other argument to refute this absurd idea, I fear my readers would think me like the lawyer, who, in undertaking to prove that a certain deed had not been signed by a designated individual, began by stating that he had fifteen reasons to allege why the man in question had not signed the deed, and promising to state them in order, began by saying, "My first reason is the unquestionable fact, that the man was dead before the deed was written; my second--" "Stop," said the judge, "if you can prove that, you may spare yourself the trouble of ennumerating your remaining fourteen reasons."
.....
On the 70 weeks of Dan 9:
"Before passing to Mr. Miller's next position, I would remark, that the commencement of the 70 weeks, and that of the 2300 days, cannot be identical, because the former commences at an event among the most joyful in the history of the Jewish nation, viz.: 'the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem,' after their long and weary captivity in Babylon should have ended; and the latter commences at an event among the most painful and calamitious in their history, viz.: 'the taking away of the daily sacrifice, setting up the abomination of desolation, and giving the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot.'"
It was there in plain sight to anybody who care to look--in 1840. It just illustrates how difficult it is for truth to pass through a self-imposed ideological filter.
John Dowling, An Exposition of the Prophecies Supposed by William Miller to Predict the Second Coming of Christ, in 1843. Providence, R.I.: Geo. P. Daniels, 1840, pp. 84-86.
"Because conversation is our mission, we publish all comments immediately. We simply request that you focus on the posted topic, and not attack anyone or use profanity."
allenroyboy said his piece without attacking anyone personally. According to the guidelines here, he is allowed his viewpoint. He spoke on topic.
I would hope some of spectrums long term participants could help set a better example if conversation is truely the mission.
Nic Samojluk, Editor, 3o Aug.6:36
Thank you for your kind response to my earlier comments about
tradition, etc.
Your questions about John Newton's theory are addressed to Des and Gill so I am perhaps presumptuous to comment. But I believe Dan. 8:9 and 23 clearly lays out the perameters for the rise and desolating trespass of the "little horn" in the "latter time" of the Greek Period's four horns, long AFTER Alexander. Since Dan. 8:14 is talking about the TERMINUS of the "little horn's" desolating trespass after 2300 tamid sacrifices have been "taken away,"it makes no sense to start the 2300 count long BEFORE the "little horn" arose and committed his "desolating trespass" as this theory seems to do. The 1967 six-day war may have prophetic sigificance, but it would seem much more reasonable to connect it with Luke 21:24 as many do than with Daniel 8 and the "little horn" within the Greek Hellenistic Period.
Aage Rendalen, 30 Aug. 4:11.
Yes Aage, John Dowling was one of Miller's most astute and able critics who thorougly refuted his unbiblical time-setting theory and eisegesis of Dan. 8.
"It was there in plain sight to anybody who care to look--in 1840. It just illustrates how difficult it is for truth to pass through a self-imposed ideological filter." Well-said.
But we all are prone to have such "filters." No "fact" is "value-neutral." Historians have long since learned this, but theologians are beginning to see their feet of clay also.
Our finite limitations keeps us all humble.Even Miller tried to put aside his preconceived opinions and asked his followers to do likewise. But alas, they all failed to meet their highest goals, and we probably do no better. Thankfully hindsight is much clearer than foresight or sight in the midst of the "fog of battle" so hopefully we can learn from our forefather's errors. Miller said,"“We have been disappointed, but disappointments will work for our good, if we make right use of them.” Have we made "right use" of 1844?
Arlin Baldwin
Thank you, Greg, for your refreshing and encouraging review of Des’ and Gill’s book. I enjoyed your thoughts. While I have not yet read the book, I affirm many of the comments above, especially Gill’s and Richard’s. And I'm sorrry I'll miss Des' visits to the US.
As one of the folks who invited Dr. Ford to preach in Toledo five times after the Glacier View fiasco, I am deeply grateful to him for introducing Christ and his gospel to me, and many others. Des made the gospel credible and accessible, and consistently demonstrated its grace and love, especially when referring to Glacier View events.
No doubt, I was attracted to Dr. Ford’s understanding of the Bible, as well as his written and oral eloquence. He is brilliant and compelling.
But what will stay with me forever is Dr. Ford’s laser-focus on lifting up Christ and proclaiming the gospel with love, authenticity, and compassion. Truly, Des is a man of God.
Allenroyboy wrote: "His exegesis, if you can dare call it, that was deeply flawed."
Posted by: allenroyboy | 30 August 2008 at 1:32
Allenroyboy: Have you read Dr. Raymond Cottrell's exegesis of Daniel 8:14? He was a most respected missionary and scholar, and received a very high honorary award for his life of faithful ministry. (Dr. Cottrell's exegesis of Daniel 8:14 is all over the internet and can be easily found with a Google search.) In what ways is Cottrell’s exegesis the same as Des Ford’s and also in what ways is it different?
Spectrum magazine also published Dr. Cottrell's short hand transcriptions of what actually happened at Glacier view. We see some recommendations made by Elder Jan Paulsen in Cottrell's notes as well.
Pay special attention to the survey that Dr. Cottrell did in which he showed that "In the closing poll, on the basis of Hebrews 9, 28 percent still opted with Ford that Christ began His second apartment ministry in the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension rather than in 1844. 35 percent agreed that each of the prophecies of Daniel has more than one fulfilment, and were thus in basic agreement with Ford's apotelesmatic solution to the problem.
34 percent dissented from Article 23 of the Dallas Statement of Fundamental Beliefs."
Allenroyboy, I have a question about the above statistics that may be you or any one else could answer for me: what I am not sure about is whether those percentages of Dr. Cottrell's survey were just of the scholars or of all of those present at Glacier View? If it was all of those present at Glacier view, that would mean that the 30 plus percentages could jump to over at least 60 percent (or more) of the scholars present at Glacier view, since I understand that many more administrators were present than scholars.
The following points are both from Greg Schneider's review of Ford's book:
A) Part of 'the baby' according to Des and Gil is "The continuation of spiritual gifts in the church, apparent in the prophetic ministry of Ellen White"
B) "Chief soiler of the water is the Investigative Judgment with all its correlates,. . . and the twisting of the book of Hebrews to support the rationalizations Adventists produced for the significance of 1844 after the Great Disappointment."
My Question: How can I believe in Ellen White if the Adventist doctrine of the 2300 years is faulty, (which I believe it is)? I believe that the prophetic gift of EGW and the Adventist doctrine of the 2300 years and 1844 stand or fall together. Ellen White highly endorsed the day/year principle and the 1844 ending date. She was among those who not only "packed their bags" on Oct. 22, 1844, but continued to endorse the reinterpretation, saying that GOD SHEWED HER that Crosier had "the true light on the sanctuary"---shut door and all. To deny the Adventist interpretation of the 2300 days is to deny EGW's inspiration.
If Oct. 22, 1844 is part of the muddy water, then so is Ellen White. I think this is part of the dilemma the denomination faces. If you knock down the 1844 "pillar", then the EGW "pillar" is next to go, because it seriously erodes her credibility and inspiration.
Ellen White was very unyielding in her position on the investigative judgment and 1844 until her death. So, the denominational leaders generally have to be supportive of the traditional position (whether they truly believe it or not). Scholars, such as Ford, who have challenged the church's position down through the years are considered heretics because they are taking a sledge hammer to the very foundation of the church's teachings. It does not matter that the scholars are accurate, articulate, logical, or reasonable. If this singular doctrine crumbles, the whole structure collapses from its own weight. If the church admits that this one doctrine is wrong, they must also give up their stated belief in the inspiration of EGW. Adventists are in a tough position, because they can't live with the prophet, and they can't live without her.
The time has come for amends....
It was an incredibly shameful day for the Seventh-day Adventist Church when our top administrative leadership made the fateful decision to defrock Dr. Desmond Ford.
Sadly, ecclesiastical religious tradition prevailed over sanity and progressive spiritual truth.
We truly did stone our own prophet; we attempted to kill the messenger.
To our very great loss we took our best and brightest gospel preacher and officially rejected and shunned him.
The archaic, cultic doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, created as a face-saving, psychological defense mechanism after the embarassing theological fiasco of the "Great Disappointment" of 1844 has been nothing but a terriffic distraction that has kept so many away from what should always have been the simple, sound, transforming, core belief of our Church: JESUS SAVES. NOW. BY FAITH ALONE.
There are three great spiritual truths. 1. God is love 2. Jesus saves 3. The Holy Spirit want to fill you right now and draw you into an intimate moment by moment connection with the Father, like He had. As Dr. Ford teaches it,the gospel is after all, all about relationship, all about oneness, all about practicing the Presence.
Everything else is commentary. Helpful? Yes. Informing? Yes. But commentary.
But I digress.--
The solid research and Scriptural evidence presented by Dr. Ford at Glacier View that the doctrine of the Investigative Judment can not be supported by Scripture is unassailable.
We are just kidding ourselves if we think the shameful action was taken against Dr. Ford only for theological reasons.
It was actually all about power, prestige and as in 1844, still about face-saving.
The elephant in the room the day the vote was taken to relieve Des of his credentials was simply this...
the church could not accept the present-day truth that Dr. Ford presented without letting go of its unquestioning support of the theology of Ellen White. Des's posistion was a direct challenge to the innerancy of Ellen White's posistion on the Sanctuary doctrine. The cultic regard with which many of the brethern held Ellen White automatically precluded them from being able to even consider Dr. Ford's enlightened posistion.
But that was then. This is now.
For whatever reasons the unfortunate decision was made by our leaders,and we can now look back on it and see what a travesty it was.
Now is the time at last for official amends to be made.
Recently, in a very moving service, the President of Pacific Union College stood in front a campus-wide assembly and dared to make amends for the intolerant, bigoted, un-Christian official policies and behavior of the College and the Church toward African-American and other minority students at the school in the not-so distant past. It was a memorable and remarkable example of the power of making amends even years after the injustices have been done. It was a freeing and healing experience.
Dr. Ford is approaching his 80th. birthday. Time is running out for us to act.
The incredible grace and forgiveness and loyalty this man has consistently shown our church and those in it who so wronged him and judged him has been a touching and profound example of love and forgiveness to all of us.
Neither Dr. Ford nor his gracious wife (who we usually forget surely suffered her own pain and wounds from the experience) has ever asked for or expected an apology from the church. But truth has progressed! The time is here for the church to officially offer Dr. and Mrs. Ford 1. a heart-felt apology 2. The return of his credentials.
Perhaps Dr. Ford does not want his credentials back. That is up to him.
But...for the church to heal and regain some of its credibility and integrity with the thousands and thousands of members who were hurt and discouraged by what happend 30 years ago, we need to make amends and apologize to him and offer the credentials back.
So, let't make it happen.
I ask that Spectrum's board allow the editors to lay temporarily aside their journalistic obejectivity and perform an act of healing service to the church. I request that they quickly organize and preside over the writing of a petition to be signed electronically or physically by as many church members as possible a petition to our Church administrators. Such a petition to be presented at the coming Autumn Council. This petition would officially apologize to Dr. and Mrs. Ford for not allowing him to express his truth to the church in an open atmosphere free of fear and coercion and retribution and furthermore, ask the Council to restore his ministerials credentials to him without delay.
I and many others I know would be pleased to contribute to any expenses Spectrum might incur for such an important undertaking.
Respectfully,
Douglas Cooper, Ph.D. (Andrews University seminary graduate 1967)
Gill,
It is very good to hear from you, and especially good to read your appreciation of my review. I am grateful that you and Des received it in the spirit it was intended. I want to underline for other readers of this blog a couple of things you said in your first (29 August 2008 at 2:49) post. Your book, indeed, DOES NOT read as an attack and a demand, especially not for yourselves. Des claims that Glacier View was a blessing for him, setting him up for a million miles of travel in many countries preaching and writing the gospel, NOT, he is quite explicit, making polemics against the Investigative Judgment (p. 127). The call you and Des make for wrongs to be righted pertains to the damage done to people in and through faulty institutional processes. If I gave the impression in my review that you were asking people to repent their beliefs, I apologize to you and to all readers, especially to Dave Larsen, whose post (28 August 2008 at 11:09) you appear to read as rebuking the call to make things right. I find Dave’s remarks enigmatic, to put it gently, but I will deal with that below or in a seperate post.
To all readers,
I want to stress further that attacking the Investigative Judgment was not an axe Des was grinding during his years at PUC, either. There is an assumption underlying many of the blog posts here and in other conversations I have had or overheard that the animus against Des among a faction of SDA pastors, laity, and adminstrators had chiefly or even exclusively to do with what he said in the fateful October 27, 1979 address in Irwin Hall. Des’s detractors were mostly theological perfectionists who based their doctrines chiefly on Ellen White and her reading of Scripture. His pitting of the tradition of the Magisterial Reformation against their perfectionist traditions, and especially his facility at claiming Ellen White for the Lutheran tradition, was obnoxious to them. The October 27, 1979 address was something he produced at the urging of fellow professors at PUC who were trying, urged on by college adminstration, to build up the local chapter of the AAF. The title, “The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity,” was not Des’s coinage, but something given to him by local AAF co-chair, Adrian Zytkoskee, who was also, incidentally, my immediate boss as chair of the Behavioral Science department. The role of that address in the politics of theological controversy was to give Des’s enemies a weapon with which finally to bring him down, a task they had long been trying to accomplish.
Thus, to Orthodoxymoron (I love your online handle),
Your characterization of Des as throwing a monkey-wrench into the Adventist machine is, I think, apt only to the degree that the “Adventist machine” is inherently perfectionist and falls apart irreparably if one tries to introduce other ways of understanding humanity, Christ, and salvation. If Bull and Lockhart’s take in their 2nd edition, chapter 5 is right, then maybe the perfectionist machine metaphor is entirely apt. On the other hand, maybe Adventism, especially at the level of local churches and schools, is a more adaptable machine than that, as Adrian’s observations (29 August 2008 at 1:21) might suggest. Your own effort in your later post (29 August 2008 at 2:52) to imagine an alternative course of action for “the brethren” of the Glacier View era suggests that Des need not have been regarded as monkey wrench in a machine, but rather as an opportunity to build up the Body of Christ.
I am sorry I am not answering everyone's questions, but I am going to do just two posts. One a comment on Doug Cooper's posting and the other about the point of GV. I was thinking that maybe Spectrum should have posted this review next week when Des has finished his talk because maybe the powers that be will try to have the meeting stopped. Thank you Doug for your posting. It's a brave statement. But Des will always be a thorn in the flesh and a stumbling block to many SDAs, and the credentials idea is not likely to ever happen. The church took away Des's credentials in 1980 after Glacier View, but they met in 1983 and then took away Des and Smut's ordination. Des had told Elder Wilson that he couldn't take away his ordination, because it was 'the mighty ordination of the pierced hands', a phrase coined by Spurgeon, i.e., man does not ordain, God does it. But they took it away anyhow. The important thing and the purpose of the books we have just put out (Jesus Only and For the Sake of the Gospel: Throw Out the Bathwater but Keep the Baby) is to appeal to the church to preach the gospel and make Jesus central. Unfortunately, people being the way they are, it might end up in a bunfight if Des were taken back in.
At Glacier View, the president of the South Pacific Division took a similar stance to allanroyboy that if Des didn’t believe in the IJ, he should hand in his resignation. It suggests Des is sly and amoral, but we won’t go there. If things were simplistic, they might have a point. But Des is only one of a series of people who have loved the church, yet have questioned the Investigative Judgment down the years. Too easy to take a position like the young Mormons, who recently sat in our living room and said, ‘I have a witness that Joseph Smith is a prophet,’ and their minds are sealed to any other possibility. It certainly saves thinking. Des wrote his commentary on Revelation in the same year as the PUC forum, which led to GV, and the research for that book clarified his thinking on prophetic interpretation. Kathie says Ellen White supported the IJ and to deny the SDA interpretation of the 2300 days is to deny EGW’s inspiration. Des would say that in Great Controversy, EGW copied the views of particularly J.N. Andrews and Uriah Smith, and they were wrong on certain points. But she had less and less to say on the subject of the IJ as she aged. He has read all the Review and Herald articles she wrote and there is nothing in those books from EGW about the IJ. We get mud slung from every side, and many get angry with Des because he won’t damn the SDA church or Ellen White. But he has read voluminously in EGW and has retained a huge respect for her. There would be very few people who have read and studied Ellen White the way Des has. There are some things in Great Controversy, which in his opinion are more insightful than the best of modern scholarship. He said to me today that Ellen White in Desire of Ages has the exact view of the atonement given by the church down through the ages. Des has read widely in the classics, such as the works of Charles Haddon Spurgeon and such writers fostered his great love for the gospel of righteousness by faith. It seems to me that some don’t know what the protestant churches at large have taught down the ages on the atonement, and they go off on philosophical tangents, trying to mould God and his salvation the way they think it ought to be. Richard is right, Paul teaches there is a true and false gospel, and individuals need to work out what they are. So people can understand, there were a number of forces pressing Des at the time of Glacier View. There had been years of pressure by the conservatives in Australia on the Australasian president to get rid of Des. Prior to Keith Parmenter, the Division personnel in Australia defended Des, but Elder Parmenter gave in to pressure from the conservatives. Mind you, the previous administration would have had a problem with Des’s stance, but they would have treated him differently. Robert Brinsmead spoke out on righteousness by faith and then against the Investigative Judgment, and Des was asked about this in many public meetings in 1979. The South Pacific Division counselled with RDB’s brother and believed his assertion that Des was in collusion with Bob (which wasn’t true, but we weren’t asked). Then the Pacific Union College Forum asked Des to address this topic at PUC. The Australasian president had previously told Des that he would not go back into teaching when he returned to Australia. Des knew he would not survive in the field, and felt he had nothing to lose by speaking out. In earlier years, Des listened to Ellen White when she said in II Selected Messages, that ‘we have much to learn and much to unlearn’; ‘we only have the first gleamings of light . . .’, and that truth can afford to be fair.’ She loved Christ and the cross supremely and wished these were made the subject of every sermon; and also said our churches were as dry as the hills of Gilboa. Des took all of this very seriously. His scholastic studies were mainly done in the area of eschatology, the study of the last things and prophetic interpretation. In this specialty area, scholars began to talk about inaugurated and consummated eschatology. With Christ’s first coming came the kingdom of God on earth; the NT teaches that believers are living in the Last Days and the Time of the End, and that the Judgment came with the Cross. SDAs had interpreted Daniel 2, the stone hitting the mountain as being applied to the first Advent only and following the principles of historicism developed a timeline for God to follow until the Second Advent. But, in fact, the Bible doesn’t see a great gap between the First and Second Advents of Christ, and Daniel 2 applies to both Advents. The Cross event, the stone hitting the mountain, convulsed time and brought in eternity. Christ and his Cross were God’s last word. And this wipes out all date-setting, which Christ forbade, and also wipes out looking for events as guideposts to mark the way. Jesus tells us there’ll be wars and rumours of wars, nation against nation, famines. . . in essence nothing but trouble; but the only sign he gives of his coming is the preaching of the gospel. ‘This gospel of the kingdom will be preached to the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come’. If this is so, and the Bible says it, should not the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom be our main focus? Why then would people say that Des only has one string on his harp? The judgment? Yes, there’s a judgment of the believer at the end of time, but it’s a ratification of that judgment achieved when the sinner accepts Christ’s work for him on the cross. It is like the one in Zechariah 3. Satan accuses, Joshua the High Priest [representing us] is dressed in filthy rags, and the angel of the LORD is for the defense. ‘The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?’ And the angel calls for his helpers to take off his filthy clothes and put a rich garment and a clean turban on him. In the judgment, Jesus in at our side and on our side, and there is no fear in judgment for the believer. The bottom line is that the understanding of justification by faith changes the mode of interpreting prophecy. Jesus becomes the centre and focus of prophecy. The final events in Revelation are built on a paradigm of Christ’s suffering (the body will suffer like the head). It’s a very different way of seeing things, because the spotlight goes away from the Adventist church and us, us, us as the center of everything, and rather focuses on Christ. It means people have to give up old ways of thinking. Not all agree, and not all see any need to change. They like the old ways. And of course, that’s their right. Des is recovering from the flu at the moment, a very rare event for him and very inconvenient, which is why I have written this, but he did read it before I posted it. He is still coming.
There has been a great oversight to date in assessing the heritage of Des Ford’s life, a heritage which goes far beyond Glacier View and the matter of 1844. It is my profound privilege along with Lorraine my wife, and dozens of others, to make a fortnightly pilgrimage whenever possible to a farm at Peachester in Queensland where Des’s daughter Ellene has set up a meeting place for the express purpose of giving her father a continuing voice. We sit in constant awe at the wealth of information and inspiration delivered without the benefit of notes and on a great variety of topics, inevitably centering on the person and mission of Christ. The resource material produced by Des in constant untiring succession would not have its equal anywhere within our church, or elsewhere. One simply sits in amazement that we forced this great man out of our midst, and the continuing thought is, “what fools we are!” Providentially every lecture is recorded. A web site (www.desford.org.au) has material that would launch a thousand sermons the likes of which are rarely heard. And this, I believe, will be Des’s greatest long-term gift to the church he has always loved. There are those of us intent on finding the funds to set up a full web-based index of all the sayings, topics, expositions and textual commentary from all lectures, recordings, and printed materials emanating from this man. Regrettably the pulpits that then come alive will not always be our own. But then who do we blame but ourselves and what we allowed? For the rumbling heard on an August day in 1980 was not the sound of a restless glacier, but the unseemly thud of a baby being thrown out with the bathwater!
To all those with a passion to defend the doctrine of an end-time investigative judgment--why would a God who knows even the hairs on our head and sees even a sparrow as it falls, need consult archives to determine the sheep from the goats?
Sounds pretty much like the secular Christmas song: "He's making a list, checking it twice to see who's naughty or nice!" Seems to me that investigative judgment advocates would be very careful about the tone of their blog entries.
Just a slip of the pen and out you go into utter darkness!
Even with a pen name, God knows and is keeping score! Tom
Hi Greg!
Thanks for correcting my understanding of your review, which I read as a marvel of cordiality and criticism.
I did take from it that a large part of the book is devoted to a critique of the IJ and that this includes a call for some kind of theological corporate repentence. But perhaps not.
In any case, instead of peppering you with these questions, I can purchase the book myself and get my answers from it.
Turning to the other matter, I apologize for being "enigmatic, to put it gently." That was not my intent. I wanted to be concise but clear. So I'll try again.
In general I am an old fashion liberal who believes in evolutionary theological change because I think that more revolutionary approaches often destroy the possibity of cumulative and inclusive doctrinal development.
My application of this general point to the situation at PUC so long ago is that perhaps this is not what took place. But you know better than I.
At the time, from my perspective at Loma Linda, it seemed to me that my colleagues at PUC had come unhinged. I say this as a graduate of both Prep and the College who thought he knew something about the place and the people. I guess not!
Although I have been attending SDA worship services since I was born in 1946, to this very moment I cannot recall ever hearing a sermon about the IJ in church. Likewise, although I have been a SDA minister since 1970, to this very moment no one has ever asked me what I think about the IJ.
In view of this, I could not understand why anyone on "the Hill" would bring it up. I still don't know.
Your point that the tensions on the campus at that time were less about the IJ and more about perfectionism helps me. But then I wonder why my colleagues at PUC, by encouraging him to make the presentation, gave Doctor Ford the theological rope with which his critics on this other issue hung him?
Didn't anyone in Angwin at that time--conservative, moderate, liberal-- have the sense that God gives a goose?
Is that less enigmatic? I hope so!
I wish you could see me as I write these words because then you'd know that I'm not fuming but smiling.
As I've said before, my problem is that I just don't get it.
Many thanks, Greg!
Dave
As someone who wasn't old enough to remember these events, I find it fascinating to hear the memories of those of you who were not just old enough to remember, but part of the story.
As someone who has often stayed in the Adventist church with the express idea to change some of what I believe needs changing, I have to heartily but respectfully disagree with allenroyboy's suggestion that it is unethical to be paid by the church and yet be working for a change, even a change of doctrine. The church is made up by people--it doesn't exist without our involvement and endorsement. Even our fundamental beliefs, which has clearly become a creed even though the preamble states expressly that it should not be used that way, are open to change, to evolving understandings of truth. Clearly that is a goal more easily stated on paper than actually achieved, though.
Dr. Cooper--I think your idea is a great one, and I'll pass it on.
There’s little doubt that I’ll buy the book and read it with great interest, as anyone who lived through “that” experience would. There’s so much here to respond to that it’s hard to choose. So, I’ve decided to address what I see as the two extremes in these comments, that being allenroyboy and Dr. Cooper.
Allenroyboy’s approach to the Ford problem is straightforward:
1. SDA’s believe in the investigative judgment.
2. Ford does not believe in the investigative judgment.
3. Ford is not an SDA.
4. Ford needs to move on (and take his theology with him).
Cooper, on the other hand, wants the Church to officially apologize and reinstate Ford. It would be hard to find a better example of polar opposites on the same web page. I have a little advice for these two gentlemen. First, allenroyboy:
Our Church has 28 Fundamental Beliefs. The first one reads as follows:
“The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.”
In addition to this, at the conclusion of the “Second International Bible Conference for Bible Teachers and Theologians” the attendee’s produced six affirmations and invited all SDA’s to join with them in these affirmations. The first one reads as follows:
“We affirm, first and foremost, our commitment to Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord, to the final authority of God's Word, the Holy Scriptures, and to the leading of the Holy Spirit.”
Therefore, based on these statements, we as SDA’s publicly state:
The Bible is the authoritative revealer of doctrines and it has final authority.
Ford’s problem, allenroyboy, is that he actually believes what we as a church publically state regarding the bible. He takes the bible, and the bible only, believing it has the final word on our teaching of the investigative judgment, and can’t find it in there. He finds no biblical basis for Jesus moving from the holy place to the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary on October 22, 1844 (a.k.a. phase 1 and phase 2). He finds no biblical basis for Jesus and the Father getting together to investigate people who confess their sins. He finds no biblical basis to investigate people in heaven that have eternal life prior to 1844, such as the multitude that went to heaven with Jesus. Ford appears to be blind to this entire teaching. He thinks it’s not biblical.
So, he asked the church to show him where it was, using the criteria publically set forth -- bible only and final authority. Our administration responded by abandoning these standards and chose your line of reasoning:
1. SDA’s believe in the investigative judgment.
2. Ford does not believe in the investigative judgment.
3. Ford is not an SDA.
4. Ford needs to move on (and take his theology with him).
This approach is much easier than to exegetically demonstrate the biblical basis for investigative judgment. Ironically, what prevents them (church administrators) from proving this doctrine is what they wrote in Fundamental Belief No. 1 and the First Affirmation noted above. So, they moved Ford on.
Simply put: Ford wants our Church to eliminate the hypocrisy. We as SDA’s can’t state publically that the Bible is THE AUTHORITATIVE WORD OF GOD and IT HAS FINAL AUTHORITY, and at the same time teach that the investigative judgment is founded on scripture – and scripture alone. It’s not.
In regards to Dr. Cooper’s extreme proposal to reinstate Ford, I have a suggestion for him to consider. First, your proposal has no teeth. It means nothing to gather a bunch of signatures and present them to the administration of our church. They may look at them, they may not. Either way, those signatures would be discarded and business would continue as usual. They only thing that gets their attention is a significant decrease in revenue. If something triggers this, they respond rather quickly. Therefore, if you could combine with your idea an action that would greatly reduce their source of revenue, until they did the right thing regarding Ford, then you will reap the fruits of your labor. I see this as the dog wagging the tail instead of the other way around. The tail has been in charge too long.
You, being a graduate of Andrews, can figure out rather quickly how to implement this action. Me, being a numskull from PUC, would suggest withholding tithe until Ford is reinstated. I can’t think of any bigger teeth than “tithe teeth” can you? I’ll be the first to sign your petition and start the withholding process. In the future, please consider refining your extreme proposals.
seekernotdefender
Hi!
Because of its close working relationship with Doctor Ford, as evidenced by the upcoming Loma Linda lecture it is sponsoring, as well as the biography of him it has recently published, I wonder if it might not be appropriate for "Adventist Today" to take the leadership on the petition drive that Doctor Cooper recommends.
At the very least, I doubt that AF should launch this effort without conferring with AT. Perhaps it could be a joint endeavor.
I am no longer on the Adventist Forum Board. If I were, I think I would vote against this well-meaning proposal because I do not think it will succeed.
If for any reason it fails, as I think likely, this outcome is almost certain to intensify and make more widespread the unhappy thoughts and feelings that still exist after all these years.
Here is an analogy: A man usually doesn't propose to a woman until he is pretty sure that she'll say "yes" because he knows that if she doesn't he is worse off than if he had never asked!
Thank you for considering my thoughts!
Dave
Seekernotdefender has the most logical solution and it deserves serious consideration. Words mean little or nothing; but money DOES talk! All those willing to sign Dr. Cooper's suggested statement should also be willing and ready to also sign an accompanying statement that all signators' tithes would be withheld from the official church (they could be put in an account set up for this purpose to show good faith and that merely withholding was not being done). This tithe could also go to the ADRA, an organization that is not controversial.
It is a well-known fact that it is the tail of third world countries that wags the NAD dog and that it is the first world countries the NAD supports and it is the greatest supporter of the world organization. Simple math would likely show that many Atoday and Spectrum supporters are better educated and probably more able to give larger tithe funds also. If it sounds perverse, one can only fight with what tools he has and in this case, the tithe is the most obvious tool that we, individually, are able to control as unlike governments that tax involutary, tithe is always a voluntary act.
There are many of us who tithe regularly, but only to our local church where we have a voice and can determine the needs. This is another alternative, as there is nothing other than G.C. "policy" that designates the "storehouse" and that is changes the distributed percent to various operations at will.
As an aside: Gillian mentioned Smuts, who was also defrocked with Des. By what method was he able to ingratiate himself and be "redeemed" as at last note, he was pastoring the Vallejo Drive Church in Glendale. What requirements did the church mandate in order for him to resume denominational employ?
Gillian, if Ellen White plagiarized her views of the Investigative Judgment from fallible men, (in the Great Controversy and other places) and pawned them off as Divine inspiration, that is still a problem to me. I am familiar with Ellen's own claims that all her writings are of Divine origin, rays of light direct from the throne of God. I am also familiar with the G.C. commissioned 8-year study of Dr. Fred Veltman done at PUC showing otherwise.
I believe that Ellen White did lift up the cross. She copied from her extensive library, and according to the Veltman study, the "Desire of Ages is for the most part derived". The fact that Desire of Ages is Christ-centered, does not erase the fact that her writings are greatly flawed in other places (historically, theologically and scientifically). The sooner the denomination clearly states that we are "Bible only" people instead of making Ellen White an "authoritative" source of truth, the better off we will be. Why should we consider Ellen White any more authoritative than the individuals from whom she copied? The reason we can't easily advance to better understandings of theological issues, is that a significant segment of Adventism is still tied to the inerrancy of Ellen White's writings, and this is the official position of the Fundamental Beliefs. If the church had been in the right position of "Bible Only" instead of "Bible plus Ellen White" 30 years ago, there would have been no reason to take away the credentials of a God-loving, God-fearing, Christ-centered, Cross-preaching scholar like Des. The church had to choose between great scholarship and Ellen White with her trail of errors. Unfortunately they chose the latter. So, we are still wallowing around in the muddy waters of traditionalism, when we should be drinking of the crystal clear water of life and lifting up Christ and Him crucified.
"Although I have been attending SDA worship services since I was born in 1946, to this very moment I cannot recall ever hearing a sermon about the IJ in church. Likewise, although I have been a SDA minister since 1970, to this very moment no one has ever asked me what I think about the IJ."
Dave,
Yours is a very interesting experience. Does this mean that you have never sat through a Daniel or Revelation seminar?
If you mean Sabbath morning service, then upon further reflection, I would think that many of us are close to your experience as well. And doesn't this present a curious and somewhat disturbing scenario?
Here is the one unique doctrine that separates SDA from all other Christian denominations. A doctrine that whenever challenged in our history has caused heads to roll. A doctrine that is constantly reiterated in our evangelism and SS quarterlies. A doctrine that must be assented to for baptism... and yet it is rarely to never preached from our pulpits from week to week?
That would be like Lutherans abandoning preaching JBF within the first 140-150 years of their history! Is their anything wrong with this picture??
Could this indicate an institutional cognitive dissonance between our officialy stated belief and our real life praxis? Could this not also indicate the need for a real review of a central belief that spells out what's going on up in heaven right now, but that ironically...at least according to the real life picture that you and others like Daneen have described on this thread... seems to have little practical impact on the lives of people down here on earth at the same time?
A troubling picture!
Thanks...
Frank
I was in Church School 1934 through 1939--The IJ was a constant. Only Edward Heppenstall and my folks saved my mind.
Dr. Heppenstall was MV Sec of the Michigan Conference and his wife to be was a student at E.M.C. so we got a lot of chapel talks from Edward--all upbeat!!!! Tom
Hi Frank!
You are right: I don't recall a sermon on this topic in any church service. Neither has anyone ever asked me about it since my Bible Doctrines Class at PUC, and even then I wasn't asked to sign on some dotted line. I have never sat through a Revelation Seminar so I have no idea what they are like.
I think this sort of thing is pretty typical in all denominations. I gather from Doctor Zwemer that the Presbyterian Church he attends does not demand that he assent to TULIP in all its severest respects. I doubt that his congregation has heard a sermon in its totoal defense in recent years. For most Calvinists in this country the harshest points of TULIP have long since been sanded smooth enough to be comfortable.
But the most effective way to resurrect TULIP in its worse expressions among Calvinists would be for someone openly and with great drama to denounce it, especially if along the way some participants get humiliated or have their motives questioned.
This is what happens with governmental laws too. There are a number of them in most states that are neither enforced nor removed from the books, though every so often there is a move to clean things up.
But this poses the big danger: Existing but unenforced rules and regulations can always be selectively administered against preceived "trouble makers."
This is why I was disappointed that my colleagues at PUC resurrected the IJ conflict three decades ago and this is why I hope we don't resurrect it again now.
I doubt that SDAism will ever formally repudiate IJ and I think it unrealistic to expect this. But I suspect that in most parts of the world it has long since ceased being a central feature of the day-to-day experience walk with God of SDAs. Unless we keep interfering, I expect this process to continue.
Meanwhile, I think we need to recall that the theme of "sanctuary" is one of the most pervasive and rich in the whole of Scripture. I believe that we do not have God's permission to withhold these treasures from other people just because we can't agree on some very technical aspects of the interpretation of a very few passages of Scripture.
The basic message of "sanctuary" is "God with Us." This is what is was in the Torah, Writings and Prophets. This is what it was in the Gospels, Epistles and Apocalypse, especially the last. This is what it was in 1844. And this is what it is now.
How dare we keep this good and much needed news to ourselves?
Thanks Frank! Welcome to "Church Leadership 101!!"
Dave
Drs. Cooper, Larson, seekernotdefender, Greg and everyone else who is interested: Last October there was the 50th anniversary conference of the book Questions on Doctrine at Andrews University. At these meetings the scholars demonstrated that they were capabable of managing controversial subjects with a wonderful demonstration of love amid the wide diversities of opinions.
I would like to propose a similar anniversary conference commemorating Glacier view. May be Adventist today could sponsor such a conference? Reports of the conference could appear in the Adventist Review and on the internet. I would suggest to do this first as a first step in bringing about the healing and reconciliation most of us in this blog so desire.
This could lay a foundation to show that the church's scholars can be trusted and respected. Once that is created, then the rest can follow.
(P.S.: David Larson and Greg: thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions.)
I'm looking forward to reading this book. I have the pleasure of attending both a local SDA Church, and, along with many other SDA Youth, I'm very blessed to hear Dr Ford speak every second Sabbath afternoon in Queensland, Australia. His talks are now available on YouTube, the latest being from last week. You can access them from this link:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=pangear
I find his talks extremely relevant and insightful.
He is, without doubt, the best preacher I have had the pleasure of listening to and learning from.
The Author of Hebrews has some odd theology at the end of his book for Jewish Christians. Evidently, he was never set free from his legalistic roots:
"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." Heb. 13:4.
Shame on you, writer of Hebrews! Who did you copy that judgment teaching from, some navel-gazing perfectionist?
John the apostle must have been unduly influenced by this Hebrews guy because he records more perfectionism heresy, allegedly the words of Jesus himself to active church members:
"If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place." Rev. 2:5.
"...I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God." Rev. 3:2
"So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Rev. 3:16.
O come on, John! Haven't you heard the gospel? Why are you spouting this hogwash? These folks were active church members. They had believed...under grace..get it?
It seems that Peter himself got lost in this quagmire with the other legalists. He offers us the same hopeless news:
"For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and it it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?" 1 Pet. 4:17.
Paul, certainly you can straighten these men out. Have you any word from the Lord about this false notion of us getting investigated?
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." 2 Cor. 5:10.
That takes the cake! What happened to you?
Hmm. Jesus is the last resort. Surely at least He preached the gospel of grace. Any word for us, Lord?
"...those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." John 5:29.
Ouch! Wait a minute, you are the Savior..remember? Did you forget about free grace? Is that all you have to say??
"...I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." Matt. 12:36-7.
Why are you teaching salvation by words? That comes pretty close to works, I'd say. Please set the matter straight...
"...I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judment." Matt. 5:22.
What do you expect in this world? You sound like one of my old academy Bible teachers! Surely you don't believe in this judgment and hell-fire business!
"But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matt. 5:22.
Well, well...I thought this whole idea of investigative judgment was dirty bathwater. I guess I am going to have to think again. I don't want to give up the Bible. After all, it is the only hope we have.
Hi Barry Kimbrough: No one that I am aware of in this blog denies any of the texts that you quoted. These texts do not show that an investigative judgment beginning in 1844 and still continuing to take place. Where does the Bible support such an idea?
This issue has to many axes to grind.
A large part of the GV era had a lot to do with perfectionism as Dave points out, though that part hasnt had its champions resurrect it.
Daves experience is not rare and its NOT just because he hasnt attended any revelation seminars. 99% of the ones I have experienced have stayed away from the whole 1844 thing altogether. Not our best moment you know?
I sometimes wonder if the critics of prophecy based evangelism think that the point of Daniel and Revelation being taught/explained is to promote the IJ. Its not.
It is to show that God knows the scope of history, reveals it as he chooses and that he doesnt do it for nothing.
This issue, as in any other this divisive, soon degenerated from the issue at hand into who did what to who and who acted badly and who owes who an apology generating more heat than light.
It is the academics and theologians perogitive to make the bible as complicated as possible but as a friend once told me, if any of this stuff was that critical for our salvation it would have been in the 10 commandments.
Dave
Wasn't this the argument used against Martin Luther King, that he provoked sleeping dogs, such as Bull Connor, bigots who would have been happy to let things slide if black didn't decide to get 'uppity' in public? That eventually blacks would have gotten their civil rights without stirring up so much trouble.
Yes, Des Ford could have spared the church and himself a lot of trouble by not stepping on the tails of these doctrinal dogs, such as the investigative judgment and perfectionism, but if we followed that kind of thinking we would have no heroes and progress would be held hostage to caution.
In 1929, another Australian, W. W. Fletcher, at age 50, broke with the SDA church over the issues relating to 1844 (and ultimately the sabbath). In his book Testing Truth (I don't have the date and publisher) he addresses the issue raised by Dave:
"Strongly centralized religious organizations are proverbially intolerant and tyrranical....If only the Seventh-day Adventist denomination would allow its ministers complete liberty of conviction and utterance, the 1844 sanctuary-atonement doctrine would gradually drop into oblivion, where it rightly belongs....Truth will triumph only through the sacrifice of its advocates. Men must speak out for the truth at the cost of position, reputation, and the confidence of the very people whom they serve by their sacrifice.
"Testimony for truth on the part of ten Adventist ministers at great loss and hardship to themselves, would accomplish more to disloge error and vindicate truth than the "wait and see" attitude of a thousand men who persuade themselves that things will come out alright in time, if only they wait long enough."
--W.W. Fletcher, Testing Truth, p. 41.
Martin Luther King expressed similar sentiments in his book written in Birmingham jail, Why We Can't Wait.
Gillian Ford wrote: But I was Des's student and he hasn't learned a thing from me.
Gill, Behind every good man there has to be a good woman. At least take credit for helping Des to speak more slowly. Actually his presentations now remind me of Elder Mark Finley. They are so sincere and well presented.
Gill, the last time I saw you was in 1983 when PUC had the privilege of the visit of the Avondale College choir or singers directed by Thrifty (Allen Thrift). Pastor Roy Naden had the divine service in the College Sanctuary and he ended his sermon with the words of Thrifty’s daughter’s choral composition “Who is this man?” and then the treat of the choir singing it - the most moving piece I have ever heard. I can still see you handing out the choir’s afternoon concert programs at the door of the PUC church, and every one smiling in return and replying “Thank you Mrs. Ford.” Then finally the good times that we all had at Wendys in Napa that same night with Thrifty putting his arm around the Wendy’s clown and acting like any “normal” Aussie would!
P.S. Technical suggestion to Des for the Utube filming: reduce the distance of walking from side to side while he preaches, because the cameraman at times can’t move the video camera fast enough to keep up. I guess that Des feels that he needs the exercise, after spending a week of 16 kilometres of jogging, riding his bicycle everywhere and swimming 5 times in the Pacific Ocean!
Hi Aage!
You've pinpointed a very important cluster of questions about when to speak and act and when to be silent and still. Thank you!
1. My emotional reactions to the paragraphs by W. W. Fletcher are intensely negative.
2. When reading what he wrote I experience no hermeneutical humility on his part. Indeed, I feel the opposite: intense hermeneutical hubris. I loathe such attitudes whether they come from the theological left, right or middle.
3. Perhaps there was at least one important difference between the civil rights efforts and the IJ conflicts. This is that racism was alive and virulent, as it still too often is, whereas in my view, IJ long ago ceased to be a significant feature of Christian life as it is actually lived on a day-to-day basis by the overwhelming majority of SDAs all around the world.
3. No denomination ever hires its theologians to denounce its doctrinal heritage. Rather, every denomination employs its theologians to: (1) explore its conceptual legacy, (2) detect ideas in this inheritance that can be especially helpful in the new situations and (3) develop these notions in ways that benefit its congregations and the communities they serve. I think that these expectations are more than reasonable.
Thank you, Aage! I'm happy to see your comments again! Somehow I've missed them for a while.
Dave
1. No Scripture is of any private interpretation.
2. The Everlasting Gospel is the product of the Counsel of Redemption--before the foundation of the world--certainly know from the gates of Eden and certainly proclaimed at the resurrection and not delayed until 1844.
3. Babylon fell at the moment Christ cried out. "It is finished" Recall Satan tried to "buy off Jesus in satan's third tempation. Satan offerred a short cut around the Cross.
4. To give comfort, aid, and intellectual support to the death after he has fallen is to be identified as one of his dominions and so marked.
5. All of which occurs either before or at AD 33 and have no reference to 1844. Tom
Dave
To borrow one of your ways of answering, I'm sorry you react so negatively to Fletcher. I did not have a similar reaction.
The famous heretics of the past, Canright, Albion Ballenger, Conradi, Fletcher--and Ford, all had one thing in common: they never intended to subvert their church. They worked for decades to promote its teachings, and only late in life did they come to the conclusions that earned them the status of 'Enemy of the people.'
As for the role of theologians, I suspect that the church originally wanted them for the same reason that the tobacco industry wanted medical researchers--as a defense against attacks from the outside.
Church theologians have always had to work within prescribed bounds. They have never been permitted to pursue research and conclusions that break with tradition. Hence the eerie quietness on the part of the guild these last three decades when it comes to the challenges raised by Des Ford, Ron Numbers and Walter Rae. Instead it seems like the scene has been taken over by intelligent hacks.
I may be wrong but I don't think that theologians by and large have played a significant role in the development of Adventist thinking. Heppenstall inadvertently prepared the way for Brinsmead and Ford. Froom's push for an Adventist Vatican II in the 50s all but failed, and from what I understand, he burned his papers before he died. Cottrell, although not formally a theologian, had some influence after his retirement, but mostly on those who might have been hesitant to accept Des Ford's conclusions.
Adventist thinking seems to have been far more influenced by administrators insisting that EGW be the official interpreter of scripture and damning anyone who might disagree.
PS. I was introduced to Edward Heppenstall in 1980 by my zealous union president, who brought him along to set me straight. I was working as an editor at the Norwegian Publishing House at the time.
Heppenstall was very pleasant, and began by telling me that he knew Bob Brinsmead, who had visited him on occacion. (This no doubt to reassure me, sine I had gotten into trouble by allowing Brinsmead to spend the night at our apartment in Oslo.) "Let he me hear what you think of my way of looking at it," he said, and then proceeded to explain his view of the sanctuary doctrine.
God, in 1844, was opening the books of heaven not to find out who was going to be saved but to show the universe that his decision to save was fully justified by the penitent's claim on the blood of Christ.
I told him that I had no problem with that, but that I didn't see how he would be able to derive such a view from scripture. "Well, there is admittedly an element of speculation in it," he answered, and that was that.
Heppenstall studiously avoided asking me what my view was. He was clearly not interested in talking about the issues raised by Brinsmead and Ford. Heppenstall'w wife was Norwegian, that's why he was in the country.)
A challenge to those of you who believe in Heppenstall's "Vindication of God's character" view of the I. J.: Where in the writings of EGW can you find support for such a view?
Or does it hang entirely on Heppenstall's "element of speculation"?
Or,
Is it what the conversation naturally turns to after the "If dogs could smile" topic runs its course?
Show me where either answer is on the entrance exam in heaven.
Michael -- I saw a similar comment yesterday. If the matter is not "that" significant... why do we by word or silence justify expelling people who hold different opinions on it?
Hi Aage,
Regarding Heppenstall's vindication of God's character: I have heard some of our preachers use Rev. 14:6-12 out of context to support that view. The "his judgment" they claim is God's judgment. That God is on trial before the universe. However the context is about judgment against Babylon.
The only thing that we can do as a church is admit that we have been wrong about these issues and this openness would gain the respect of those considering our beliefs and ways of treating each other in the church.
Aage, next to your great country Norway, besides Iceland, Australia is one of the most desired countries to migrate to. In Australia we are proud of our convict heritage. We do not try to hide it. We are open and honest about our history. Similarly the SDA church could be one of the most desired churches to join when we show that we are proud of our Adventist heritage, while at the same time freely admitting the errors of not taking the Bible in it's context in some of our historical beliefs.
Then carry on with the noble task of the SDA Bible commentary writers of establishing our doctrines on the foundation of the Bible. I believe that this was the goal of Des Ford's book "Daniel 8:14 The day of atonement and the investigative judgment." It was obvious to Dr. Raymond Cottrell after mingling with the brethren at Glacier view that most of them had not even read the manuscript.
So the solution as I see it is to have the church's scholars meet on this issue like the Q.O.D. 50th anniversary conference, because scholars are trained in theological issues and have the degree of expertize necessary when dealing with doctrines that must be supported by the Bible.
To Mike M. and anyone else who asks the same question:
The point I was trying to make is that investigative judgment is found on every page of Scripture. If we remove Daniel, we still have 65 books that teach IJ happening before the SC.
In other words, what difference does it make if IJ starts in 1844 or some other date, if it is a fact in any case?
If everyone on this blog supports the basic biblical idea of IJ, why is there so much excitement about a book that attempts to throw out the doctrine of IJ?
As for your request for evidence for specific date 1844, read Daniel 8:14,17. If you want further proof, email me at
morninglightwpep@yahoo.com
and I will send you my paper on the subject.
But I say again: IJ stands even if 1844 falls. I personally don't believe that 1844 falls, however for the sake of discussion I will allow this in order to show that IJ theology is not based on only one Bible text. That was my reason for quoting only NT in the previous post.
Thank you Jaden for sharing with us this current information. This gives those who have never heard or seen Dr. Ford, as well as those of us who have not seen him for a while, a good audio and video view of his current health and preaching style. Thankfully he has slowed his rapid-fire delivery and you can understand his Aussie dialect much better! Your comment and link is worth repeating here and sharing with others. I just checked YOUTUBE out and with full screen this is almost like being there in person! --Arlin Baldwin
[["I'm very blessed to hear Dr Ford speak every second Sabbath afternoon in Queensland, Australia. His talks are now available on YouTube, the latest being from last week. You can access them from this link:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=pangear
Posted by: Jayden (not verified) | 31 August 2008 at 2:05"]]
KM
Perhaps because I believe the following statement to be true.
Schism and division are not the fruits of righteousness; they are of the wicked one. The great hindrance to our advancement at this time is the selfishness that prevents believers from having true fellowship with one another. The last prayer that Christ offered for His disciples before His trial was that they might be one in Him. Satan is determined that this oneness shall not be, for it is the strongest witness that can be borne that God did indeed send His Son to reconcile the world to heaven.-- Letter 41, Feb. 24, 1903, to Dr. F. E. Braucht, a physician laboring in Chicago.
Therefore I echo Daves question, what good did they think they were doing by promoting what is at best a different theory or theological proof? Is the question on the entrance exam to heaven? Do we really have to know the answer to be saved? I would appreciate specific answers to these questions.
Thanks
From my days in higher ed and local churches in the Inter-America Division -- within the last decade. No embellishment:
The IJ was not taught as "God's character being vindicated outside the solar system" but as "our character being sifted in advance of the Second Coming." It was presented as the QED of Daniel 8 and Revelation 14, and people were just as likely to study it during Bible class as any other topic. And it became a warrant for certain kinds of sermons: "Young people, stop playing around -- these are the last days!" With appropriate EGW quotations.
The teaching was also used (David et al. might say "coopted") to justify several Adventist lifestyle distinctives, distinctives which the local churches and institutions insisted on and were proud to be known for. Such things included the light of Leviticus 11 and vegetarianism, not wearing jewelry, not going to the cinema, not forming close associations with nonAdventists (especially those of the oppposite gender). If something deemed naughty could not be Biblically outlawed on its own terms, it was verboten because we were in the pre-advent judgment and even if God had winked at it before, He wasn't winking now and you, oh naughty one, were out of luck. Take out your ear-rings. I have encountered the same reasoning at comparable strength in a certain union of the Trans-European Division, now within the last 5 years. It waxes and wanes depending on which evangelists just left town, which DVDs have just been shown, and which schools the proponents have just graduated from.
Was all this division-specific? Was it time-specific? At the time I thought I'd stepped through a wormhole, but everything I read and heard from church administrators' sermons, the Adventist Review through mission reports from other divisions outside of North America (where "the church is falling away and that's why it's not growing") made it appear as if such use of the doctrine was routine, authorized, and expected. No alternatives were presented.
Perhaps the IJ is a relic in some sections of the NAD; I don't doubt the testimonies here. But it isn't a relic in my city. They grip it pretty tightly round these parts, and not as God's vindication but as our sifting.
So often people will say "Well, it's not the church's fault if the local churches and institutions don't teach what the church teaches..." How many firemen has the church sent to put out the blaze of miseducation? I'd say that the church is as the church does -- and "the church" can't afford to leave the local church, the just-formed company, the newly baptized, the old diehards, the youth, the compliant, the skeptical, the uncommitted, or the contrarians behind.
There's mass confusion on the ground, my friends. Mass confusion.
Michael -- if I follow what you just said: if you think the church could be mistaken about something, or could add something to its understanding of a teaching, but the teaching is not salvific, you should stay quiet for the sake of "unity"?
That would be an odd stand to take given that "the institution" has revised its theological proofs many a time since 1860, and often at the behest of one or two who presented their new understanding.
To my mind, no knowledge is salvific. But if "salvific" were the only matter one could discuss without being accused of disunity, our conversations would probably be limited to the atonement.
To Barry Kimbrough (not verified) | 01 September 2008 at 7:05
To put the novel name "Investigative Judgment" and the specific date of Oct. 22, 1844 on the orthodox Biblical Pre-Advent Judgment that Christians have known for 2000 years is very similar to Miller's and hundreds of other false time-setters practice through the centuries who have set specific dates for Christ's Second Advent.
Time-setting is clearly unbiblical and Christian history clearly shows it always leads to great disappointments and much confusion and loss of faith. The traditional SDA "Investigative Judgment" as taught in Great Controversy and other authoritative sources
is not the same as the Biblical Pre-advent Judgment and all attempts to conflate them are ill-advised, invalid, and even deceptive, but I am sorry to say you are not the first one to do this.
But I will accept your gracious offer and send for your paper
on the IJ and see for myself how you "prove" it. If you can do so, it will be the first example I have seen that does this, and I have read many such attempts over the years since the 1950's.
Last comment before I return to my work. [:)] I promise to check in later.
Union does not come by cloning: not by cloning of thought, style, conviction, gender, culture, approach to the gospel, articulation of a doctrine, or any other excuse we might use to separate. Union is not sameness. But the assumption that union is sameness, or that it requires it, underlies "Conform to the status quo, or keep your objections to yourself... or go."
What bothered me most about the Ford debacle was the reactionary response of the church(both laity and leadership). The church was in trouble long before Ford spoke out. Ford was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't know if there is a good solution to all of this...just look at church history! The above comments have been a good example of how to carry on a rational discussion of troublesome and controversial topics. By the way...at Ford's Forum lecture, Wayne Judd referred to not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Also Eric Syme(did you ever see how fast he could drive that Triumph of his?!) referred to Bertrand Russell's opinion that Christianity was unethical because of the Atonement, with the innocent taking the place of the guilty.
I have stated the following elsewhere in this site, but I'm interested in any responses in the current context. I'm very sorry for the length of this post. It seemed to be necessary in order to connect the jots and tittles:
Did God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit require the sanctuary service? Or was it Satan who required the sanctuary service? The sanctuary service involved sacrifice(killing) and ultimately human sacrifice. When we hear about heathens sacrificing their children, we cringe in horror(I do). But isn’t traditional Christianity centered in God the Father sacrificing his child? Is there a problem here? Does the sanctuary service involve a sort of appeasement of ‘the gods’?
It seems to me that Satan had more to do with the sanctuary service than God. Jesus did away with the sanctuary service. It further seems that Satan claimed ownership of the human race, and required worship, and that God had to literally strike a deal with the Devil to liberate us. Jesus waged spiritual warfare with all the forces of hell and won, thus opening the door for our liberation. The death of Christ on the cross was symbolic of a victory which had already occurred. The spike that was driven through Christ’s heel continued through the serpent’s head. Unfortunately the serpent is still writhing and will continue to do so until human beings win a spriritual warfare with the forces of hell in a manner similar to that of Christ. Jesus showed the way, but he has had few true followers for nearly 2,000 years now. Ellen White tried to rally the troops, but few seemed to grasp the full implications of her ministry. So this thing keeps dragging on and on. A concerted spiritual warfare might well culminate in what is refered to as Armageddon. Satan and his cohorts will not give this earth up without a huge fight.
The substitutionary atonement was not to satisfy a bloodthirsty God…but rather to silence the demons infesting this earth. The crucifixion of Christ was the first payment, and when a critical mass of human beings do what Jesus said to do, the 2nd and final payment will be made. Might this be the final application of the atonement that Adventists catch so much flack over? Does Satan, rather than God, require the so called Investigative Judgment? Isn’t Satan the ultimate legalist?
I guess I see the Sanctuary Service, the Substitutionary Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment as being required to silence Satan and to kick him(or her) out of our world...permanently(God/Jesus dealing with Satan). But a harmonious relationship with Christ and His Teachings is required to bring about, and participate in, the Kingdom of God...and to obtain the benefits of the Atonement.
The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: ‘A priest must not make himself ceremonially unclean for any of his people who die, except for a close relative, such as his mother or father, his son or daughter, his brother, or an unmarried sister who is dependent on him since she has no husband–for her he may make himself unclean. He must not make himself unclean for people related to him by marriage, and so defile himself. “‘Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies. They must be holy to their God and must not profane the name of their God. Because they present the offerings made to the Lord by fire, the food of their God, they are to be holy. “‘They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God. Regard them as holy, because they offer up the food of your God. Consider them holy, because I the Lord am holy–I who make you holy. “‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. “‘The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt or tear his clothes. He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother, nor leave the sanctuary of his God or desecrate it, because he has been dedicated by the anointing oil of his God. I am the Lord. “‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the Lord, who makes him holy.’” The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the Lord by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’” So Moses told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.—Leviticus 21:1-24 (New International Version)
“When the loud cry, ‘It is finished!’ came from the lips of Christ, the priests were officiating in the temple. It was the hour of the evening sacrifice. The lamb representing Christ had been brought to be slain. Clothed in his significant and beautiful dress, the priest stood with lifted knife, as did Abraham when he was about to slay his son. With intense intrest the people were looking on. But the earth trembles and quakes; for the Lord Himself draws near. With a rending noise the inner veil of the temple is torn from top to bottom by an unseen hand, throwing open to the gaze of the multitude a place once filled with the presence of God. In this place the Shekinah had dwelt. Here God had manifested His glory above the mercy seat. No one but the hight priest ever lifted the veil separating this apartment from the rest of the temple. He entered in once a year to make an atonement for the sins of the people. But lo, this veil is rent in twain. The most holy place of the earthly sanctuary is no longer sacred. All is terror and confusion. The priest is about to slay the victim; but the knife drops from his nerveless hand, and the lamb escapes. Type has met antitype inthe death of God’s Son. The great sacrifice has been made. The way into the holiest is laid open. A new and living way is prepared for all. No longer need sinful, sorrowing humanity await the coming of the high priest. Henceforth the Saviour was to officiate a priest and advocate in the heaven of heavens. It was as if a living voice had spoken to the worshipers: There is now an end to all sacrifices and offerings for sin. The Son of God is come according to His word, ‘Behold, I have come-in the volume of the Book it is written of Me,-to do Your will, O God.’ ‘With His own blood’ He entered in ‘the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.’ Heb. 10:7; 9:12.”—Desire of Ages p. 807-808(Home Library Edition)
‘”When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another.” Thus Christ on the Mount of Olives pictured to His disciples the scene of the great judgment day. And He represented its decision as turning upon one point. When the nations are gathered before Him, there will be but two classes, and their eternal destiny will be determined by what they have done or have neglected to do for Him in the person of the poor and the suffering. In that day Christ does not present before men the great work He has done for them in giving His life for their redemption. He presents the faithful work they have done for Him. To those whom He sets upon His right hand He will say, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.” But those whom Christ commends know not that they have been ministering unto Him. To their perplexed inquiries He answers, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. How surprised and gladdened will be the lowly among the nations, and among the heathen, to hear from the lips of the Saviour, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” How glad will be the heart of Infinite Love as His followers look up with surprise and joy at His words of approval!’—Desire of Ages pgs. 685 & 686 (Home Library Edition)
Forensic-only justification is legalistic. It is simplistic legalism(Ford's better idea) offered as the solution to complex legalism(historic Adventism). Responsibility is the real solution....being responsible caretakers of our world, ourselves, and each other...by exercising personal responsibility. Being right with God and others...by being right with God and others...not simply being declared to be right. But perfection is not required...because God is not a legalist. We can always do better...but we should not have a nervous breakdown trying to be 'perfect'. There should be Kaizen(continual improvement)...without ever 'arriving'. We don't have to be 'perfect' to be 'good enough' for God. An Adventist school I attended had the motto 'where only the best is good enough'.
Furthermore, does Revelation teach a 'Final Solution' which involves killing all 'undesirables'? In other words, human beings being killed by a God of Love for rejecting a God of Love. I have stated this very bluntly...but is this a misrepresentation?
For those who choose to follow Satan...would it be ethical and appropriate to allow them to follow and worship their leader on a distant 'Devil's Island' planet for all eternity...rather than being tortured or killed by God?
The Great Commission: "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."---Matthew 28:18-20(NIV).
Have Christians been busy doing this for 2,000 years...or doing everything but this? Is this the Great Omission? I'm guilty too. I'm no poster child. By the way, why does Jesus say 'all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me?' Given to him by whom, and when? Did he win this authority away from Satan during his earthly ministry? Is this the first part of the deal with the Devil(Holy Place phase)? Is doing what Jesus told us to do the second and final part of this deal(Most Holy Place phase)? Is this where the Investigative Judgment comes in?
I have problems with the scriptural(Dan. 8:14, Heb. 9;12) and numerical aspects(2300 days/years, 1844) of the Investigative Judgment...as well as that it is something which God needs or requires(the Lord knows them that are his). But if it is something which Satan requires as a part of a legalistic, lawyer-like, celestial courtroom, universal power struggle, legal wrangling regarding the souls of men and the fate of the human race at the end of this present darkness...then I am all ears. It can help to explain why 2,000 years after Jesus paid it all, and saved the human race...things are worse than ever. Does anyone know how many people have been tortured, injured, or killed in wars since Ellen White died in 1915? So what went wrong? We can't say everything is fine when it obviously is not. I don't think Ellen White was kidding when she wrote, 'Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then shall the Lord come to claim them as His own.'--Christ's Object Lessons, pg 69. Try taking the teachings of Jesus seriously, and start talking about them and implementing them at the local church or conference level...and see how much trouble you get into(more trouble than Des?). How about the 28 Fundamental Teachings of Jesus Christ? How about Teachings of Jesus Seminars? This applies to all Christian churches. Christianity is a religion about Jesus...not the religion of the teachings of Jesus. Who needs the Anti-Christ? To answer Des Ford's question, 'Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?' The answer is both. The early Adventist/Millerite mistakes should be freely admitted...but the Investigative Judgment should be promoted and defended on a conceptual level...extrapolating from the issues involved in the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan in the Conflict of the Ages. This isn't a fairy-tale.
I have a hunch that Herb Douglas(or Des Ford!) would not agree with me. I think I believe in a sort of ‘harvest eschatology’…but certainly with a very different flavor than that which is found in ‘Why Jesus Waits’ or in ‘Jesus: Benchmark of Humanity’. To me, the U.S. Constitution and the Red Letter Teachings of Jesus are much more important than the 28 Fundamentals. I’m probably more on the wavelength of the following:
“Not many people of moderate persuasion have much sway in the church any more. I was reminded why recently when the Episcopal Church did two important things: It elected a woman bishop to head the denomination, and it backtracked on appointing gay bishops. The first move seems Christian. Women deserve to hold church office as much as political office (one diocese, however, was so incensed that it voted to leave the church, and worldwide there are still Anglican movements that do not permit women to be bishops or ordained priests). The second move was an act of cowardice because it did not reflect the ideals of love in Christianity and was motivated by reactionaries in the Episcopal denomination. Countering a long tradition of laissez-faire tolerance, the reactionaries have gotten tough and threatened to form their own church if gays are promoted in the priesthood. The worldwide Anglicans are more intolerant, upholding that homosexuality is forbidden, unnatural, wrong or an outright sin, depending on who is doing the disapproving. You'd think that someone would stand up and ask a simple question: Who are we to condemn gays if Christ didn't? In fact, who are we to condemn any sinner, since Christ didn't? Christianity is about forgiveness, and for the past two decades, as fundamentalism swept through every Protestant denomination, moderates and liberals have been driven out, and were roundly condemned as they left. Along with them went tolerance and forgiveness, not to mention love. Did Christ teach love or is that just a liberal bias? In the current climate, it's hard to remember, but one thing is certain: Once a tight cabal of fundamentalists takes over any denomination, Christ's teachings go out the window. The reversal of Christianity from a religion of love to a religion of hate is the greatest religious tragedy of our time. Those of us who haven't been swept up in worldwide fundamentalism, which has corrupted Islam, Hinduism and Judaism as well, have been caught in a double bind. We can't join any sect that preaches intolerance, yet we can't fight it, either, because by definition fighting is a form of intolerance. To escape this double bind, moderates have stayed silent and stayed home. But that tactic failed. As healthy as it is to nourish your own devotion and faith, it's disastrous to allow extremists to take over the church, because the statehouse, the board of education, the Congress, and eventually the presidency are next. Perhaps civil society will solve the problem of religious extremism. So far it hasn't. America finds itself in the sad plight of being the world's most prominent secular society hijacked by sectarians. One can only hope that the church comes to its senses and regains its moral center. If that doesn't occur, the core teachings of Christ will be lost, for all intents and purposes, to this generation.” --- Deepak Chopra
Again...sorry for the length of this post. I promise(sort of)...I won't do it again. I have decided to follow Jesus. Though none go with me...still I will follow. No turning back.
There were two major outcomes of the Glacier View and the throwing out of Dr. Desmond Ford:
1. A huge brain drain of some of our most creative, authentic and bright thinkers.
2. A huge set-back in research, the pursuit of Truth, and contributions to the scholarly body of knowledge.
The Church has paid an expensive price for trying to keep the doctrines "pure."
The deeply troubling prescedent-setting moral to Dr. Des Ford's experience is the message loud and clear sent by the Church to all scholars in Adventist academe: a prioi assumptions and biases must be part of your research.
Researchers employed by Adventist institutions of higher learning must conduct research that supports Adventist doctrines, church traditions, and the writings of EGW.
The search for truth be damned.
Sadly, this a priori bias impacts many fields of study, not just theology but medicine, science, psychology, sociology, child development, nutrition, etc.
The implications of Dr. Ford's experience is clear: Research and scholarship is not a search for TRUTH but must support the pre-suppositions of Adventist doctrines.
Who knows the research agendas abandoned, and the never-found "findings" Adventist scholars and researchers might have pursued in the last thirty years? What truths have been undiscovered because of prior restraint?
To me, the muffling of scholarship and impact on the pursuit for truth is most troubling. Truth is at the heart of all inquiry. Adventist scholars must carefully choose their research niches. Dr. Ford's experience signaled the ultimate death of true academic freedom.
As Dr. Cooper has suggested, a magnanimous apology to Dr. Ford would have far more implications beyond restoring relationships. It would signal the openness for research in Adventist higher education and a restoration of pure research ethics.
As a young person who heard Dr. Ford speak many times, I never heard criticism or "poor me" speeches or sermons--on the contrary, only a total focus on Jesus, a gentlemanly, Christ-like response when asked questions about Glacier View issues, and a total focus on the Everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ.
An apology and restoration would send a huge message to the academic community.
"[FB]24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary:
There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement...."
From what I've seen, majority of those who seek admission to membership in our Adventist churches - in this country - either through baptism, profession of faith, or transfer from another Adventist congregation have neither been told nor asked if they knew all 28 Fundamental Beliefs. I may be mistaken, so those who have inside knowledge please correct me. In many cases, not all, it's sufficient that they sign a card indicating their desire for inclusion in the Adventist fellowship.
This is in stark contrast with what's happening in my part of the world - the third world - as well as in my immigrant ethnic Adventist community. However, does it matter if newcomers or prospective converts were told or not - in my part of the world? Evidently, it doesn't, since the assumption in this blog - a view that seems to be shared by many, not all, church leaders - is that third world Adventists are composed largely of those who are poor, mostly illiterate and don't think.
The discussion on what happened in 1844 is interesting but unprofitable because the event is wrong and the timing is wrong. Nowhere in Daniel does it talk about 2300 "years". No Biblical prophetic time period started in 457 B.C. and ended in 1844 A.D.
ATONEMENT EVENT: The book of Hebrews teaches that Jesus went into the Most Holy Place at the ascension to sit at the right hand of God. The atonement was made when Jesus ascended on high immediately after the resurrection. There is no such thing as an "Investigative Judgment" or "Day of Atonement" starting in 1844. It is unbiblical in the extreme.
WRONG TIMING: The day/year principle, taken from the book of Ezekiel ("I have appointed thee a day for a year") should not be taken out of context and applied to Daniel 8:14, making "2300 evening-mornings", into 2,300 years! "Twenty-three hundred evening-mornings" would be just over 6 years, not over two millenniums. It is an end-time prophecy. How can 457 BC-1844 AD be construed as "the time of the end" or "the last end of the indignation"?
Jesus didn't come to earth in 1844, and He didn't go into the Most Holy place "for the first time" in 1844 as the SDA pioneers thought. This idea was hatched up by an ever-so-sincere, but sleep-deprived and disappointed man named Hiram Edson in a dried-up cornpatch the next morning. He was going more on emotion than on deep and careful Bible study. Ellen White made the mistake of endorsing his view as a substitute theory for the failed return of Christ to earth. It was a desperate attempt to salvage their mistaken interpretation of prophecy. After the Great Disappointment, they created another Great Disaster and Delusion which still persists today, championed primarily by SDAs. The pioneers also claimed that probation closed in the 1840's. They taught this from about 1846-1851. They were wrong on every point. It was confusion and fanaticism. People were being "slain in the spirit" and "getting messages", falling off of chairs, and crawling on the floor, shouting, disturbing the neighborhood, greeting one another with "holy kisses". You get the idea.
We need to move on---hard to do, but necessary. We must have more thorough Bible study, and take more accurate positions that will stand up to scrutiny, instead of adopting other people's theories, assumptions and fantasies.
cyberkat AKA Kathie B.
'I suspect that many Rwandan SDAs heard and understood, at some level, that “one does not have to be good to be saved, but that one must be saved to be good” (p. 134). However, suspended in webs of kinship and clan whose meanings are overlaid and twisted by generations of colonial European exploitation that sought to divide and conquer, it seems apparent that they did not hear that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, Hutu nor Tutsi. In short, I do not think that western individualistic models of the atonement, forensic or perfectionist, speak to the kinds of problems apparent in the Rwandan genocide....
'My point, not at all an original one, is that there are many ways to make sense of Christ, His life and teachings, His death and resurrection. Any of them can be a means of transforming grace, simply empty words, or worse.'
The above one-of-a-kind commentary, IMO, is so true, yet rarely heard, if at all, even in Adventist academic centers of the third world. AIIAS? Others?
" is the message loud and clear sent by the Church to all scholars in Adventist academe: a prioi assumptions and biases must be part of your research.
Researchers employed by Adventist institutions of higher learning must conduct research that supports Adventist doctrines, church traditions, and the writings of EGW.
The search for truth be damned.
Sadly, this a priori bias impacts many fields of study, not just theology but medicine, science, psychology, sociology, child development, nutrition, etc."
In support of, an in perfect harmony with the statement above, here is the requirements and standards set by the Creation Research Society.
Need more be said?
CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special
creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
not that there's anything wrong with having a good statement of belief....
but scientific truth is rarely reached when people come at it backwards: we already have the truth, so what evidence can we find to back it up.
No reputable scientist who values his profession could possibly sign such a presumptive statement.
It would effectively stop all further research dead in its tracks: there is no need for research when the "truth" has already been decided upon.
AB: "But what is not well known (or admitted by those who know) is that Miller himself assumed as his exegetical 'keys' two contemporary Christian traditions of his era: (1) the so-called 'day=year principle' that had come down from the Catholic exegete Joachim of Flores in the Middle Ages, and (2) the idea that the 70 Weeks and the 2300 'days' began at the same time around 457 BC."
Not well known? Not admitted? This is something that Adventists have always underscored, to emphasize that SDA prophetic interpretation was not created ex nihilo, but in fact rests on very old foundations and widely accepted principles of interpretation. Froom's purpose in his four volume Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers was to demonstrate just this (and fortunately, these volumes are available on-line so that anyone can check them out).
Some here are critical of the DARCOM volumes, repeating Cottrell's claim that they were by inferior scholars who didn't deal with the real points of issue. To the contrary; just to name one issue, consider William Shea's two chapters in the first volume on the validity of the year/day principle.
Have Adventists abandoned the teaching? Hardly. The cleansing of the sanctuary is taught at the seminary; the course does not shy away from the various controverted points. The distance learning version features lectures by Roy Gane, Richard Davidson, and Jon Paulien. For a good summary of what is presented, see Roy Gane's Altar Call, which is one of the texts.
A criticism that used to be made was that no Adventist scholar could get a non-Adventist publisher to publish SDA exegesis on, say, Leviticus 11. Well, take a look at Roy Gane's 2004 volume on Leviticus and Numbers that's part of the NIV Application Commentary series published by Zondervan.
I had accepted Des' interpretations when I was in college, and left the church as a result. But over the years, I saw that his proposed solutions had plenty of holes in them. I received two graduate degrees from Gettysburg Lutheran Seminary, studying with Luther historian Eric Gritsch and systematician Robert Jenson, and saw that Des didn't capture the dynamism of the Lutheran teaching on justification at all. Luther was especially appealing to people like himself who had Anfechtungen, anxieties; he urged them to cling by faith alone to the promise of Christ, regardless of their feelings; he found this word both in the preached gospel and the enacted gospel, the "visible word" (per Augustine) of baptism and the Lord's Supper. But he also acknowledged that this word creates what it says, just as God's word did in creation (see his commentary on Genesis 1).
Yes, some in Adventist history spoke about entering within the veil with fear--but you can also read volumes throughout Adventist history which, like Gane's "Altar Call," trumpet the confidence of Paul: we have boldness to enter in because of the high priest who is our mediator. That's the message I have heard preached by evangelists like Mark Finley, O. J. Mills, and W. D. Frazee, as well as by theologians and professors like Gane, Davidson, and others.
"A criticism that used to be made was that no Adventist scholar could get a non-Adventist publisher to publish SDA exegesis on, say, Leviticus 11."
I meant Lev. 16.
I’ll try and put the IJ into proper perspective. Read this and tell me what’s missing:
Fundamental Belief #10 – The Experience of Salvation
“In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment.”
Did you catch it?
What’s missing is the word “forgiveness.” In other words, we state publically that forgiveness is not part of the “experience of salvation.” Sad isn’t it?
From the dawn of Christianity forgiveness of sin has been has been associated with accepting Christ as your personal Savior (a.k.a.” experience of salvation”). This is a fundamental teaching of Jesus:
Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven;
Luke 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Col. 2:13 Then God made you alive with Christ. He forgave all our sins.
1Jo 2:12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.
What prevents us (SDA’s) from including forgives as part of the “salvation experience” is the IJ, so we omit it from our Fundamental Belief Statement #10. This teaching (IJ) very clearly states that no forgiveness takes place until October 22, 1844. There is no “power in the blood” of Jesus until that time. No one is made “whiter than snow” until 1844. No one received any benefits – none – during “Phase 1” of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.
Even the most adamant supporter of the IJ would see this as non-biblical...surely.
I do.
seekernotdefender
KM
Am I to understand that this list of actions or experiences,
"vegetarianism, not wearing jewelry, not going to the cinema, not forming close associations with nonAdventists (especially those of the oppposite gender). If something deemed naughty could not be Biblically outlawed on its own terms, it was verboten because we were in the pre-advent judgment and even if God had winked at it before, He wasn't winking now and you, oh naughty one, were out of luck. Take out your ear-rings. I have encountered the same reasoning at comparable strength in a certain union of the Trans-European Division, now within the last 5 years. It waxes and wanes depending on which evangelists just left town, which DVDs have just been shown, and which schools the proponents have just graduated from."
..is a list of IJ related day to day things? I have encountered many of the things on your list, but NEVER has it even crossed my mind that they had anything to do with the IJ.
Is this another example of different peoples perspectives? I dont know, but the IJ for me is probably important to the extent that all things surrounding the bible and Christ are important, but no more provable one way or the other than is the existance of God so why quibble over different word pictures and discriptions. Even its advocates on both sides will agree that there is simply not enough evidence to know one way or the other.
Then the question always seems to move from proving it one way or the other and goes towards how somebody did something to somebody else.
Neither of us probably have any doubt that things could have happened in a better way, but the way they were handled or are being handled is not proof that one interpitation or the other is the correct one.
As to this question you asked.
"Michael -- if I follow what you just said: if you think the church could be mistaken about something, or could add something to its understanding of a teaching, but the teaching is not salvific, you should stay quiet for the sake of "unity"?"
No. I would condense it differently. Mathmatically even.
Non Salvic = Trivia
Trivia being not nessisarily bad or good in itself. But clearly the ardent triviadors on this subject have fully explored the negative aspects and like Peter, have cut off someones ear on one side or on the other side tried so hard to prove they and their ideas are right that they leave the Church and/or Christianity like Brinsmead et al.
Nothing worse than someone who insists on public speaking and telling everyone their theories and how they are right and everyone else doesnt get it WHILE they change their mind every 5 minutes on what it is they believe.
"And have them make me a sanctuary, so that I may dwell among them." Exodus 25:8 NRSV
"And the Word became flesh and lived [tabernacled/sanctuaried] among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth." John 1:14 NRSV
"And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, See, the home [tabernacle, sanctuary] of God is among mortals. He will dwell [tabernacle/sanctuary] with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes." Revelation 21: 3&4. NRSV
To anyone who is interested:
I have written a paper that shows Hebrews does not destroy the Sanctuary Doctrine, but instead supports it very strongly. This is not forced interpretation but honest exegesis. I will send to those who request:
morninglightwpep@yahoo.com
Following are some eloquent thoughts on the atonement which are credited at the end.
The entire Old Testament, namely Jewish religious system, with its history, fragments, facets - law, tabernacle, liturgy, sacrifices, festivals, observances – stood for the old covenant, a shadow, a copy that met its original in Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate, God’s final and complete revelation to man. By the virtue of his saving work Jesus introduced a new covenant or “the time of the new order”, thus making the old one obsolete (Hebrews 7:22., 8:7.13., 9:10).
The entire Book of Hebrews makes this clear by stressing the superiority of Jesus in relation to every detail of the old covenant. Thus Jesus stands for – a better Moses, (who was the best of the prophets) (3:2.), a better meaning of Sabbath (4:9.), a better priesthood (7:12.24.), a better law (7:12.), a better high priest (7:15.16.26.27.), a better sacrifice (7:27., 9:26., 10:12.), a better ministry (8:6.), a better hope (7:18.), a better promise (8:6.7.), a better covenant (7:22., 8:13., 9:13.), a better order (9:10.11.), a better tabernacle (chapter 9), a better access to the Father (6:19., 10:19-22.)
To retain elements of the inferior shadowy old covenant as if they were the reality themselves, would mean to veil, undermine, even make a mockery of the impact, importance and significance of the mechanism by which the New Covenant was put into effect; namely the once-and-for-all completed Atonement in the life and death experience of Jesus Christ. It would mean just the same as if one were to proclaim the insufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. It would also mean to remain unnecessarily under the veil, under the law, dull and blind to the light of the gospel. (2. Corinthians 3:12-16.)
Expressions such as “after he had provided purification” (1:3.), “having obtained eternal redemption” (9:12.), “appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin” (9:26.), “offered for all time one sacrifice for sins” (10:10.12., 7:27., 9:26.), “entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood “ (9:12.), “he sat down at the right hand of God” (1:3.,. 8:1., 10:12., 12:2.) – strongly imply the completed activity, and the one of the most profound importance, namely the finished Atonement, which was followed by His immediate return to the Father’s most immediate presence (Hebrews 9:12.).
Nowhere in the Book of Hebrews is there a suggestion or a hint that whatever followed His return to his Father’s presence was to be a continuation of the Atonement, nor that the atonement is a phased process with different stages of emphasis. The concept that infuses any kind of ongoing heavenly liturgy into the finished atonement is not far away from the Roman-Catholic concept of Christ who is being continuously sacrificed, every time and whenever the Holy Mass is conducted. Such a concept certainly perverts the gospel of Christ, because the objective nature of the Atonement is lost. In other words, the ongoing heavenly liturgy becomes the ground for my acceptance in addition to the blood of Jesus.
To go a step further, by claiming that sometimes, at a much later date, commenced “the great antitypical Day of Atonement” equals to making the mockery of the Gospel because it gives another date the redemptive significance which only belongs to the Cross, and to the Cross alone. The ongoing atonement concept confuses a follower of Christ seeking the assurance of salvation. On the contrary, the intercessory ministry of Jesus only makes sense if placed within the context of the-once-and-for-all completed Atonement at the Cross. Christ does not intercede in order to save, but He qualifies to intercede because He has already atoned for our sins.
It was the finished, successfully completed atonement that empowered Jesus to go boldly, “on behalf of man” (6:19.), “where none had gone before” – to the very presence of the Father, to the “consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29.), to the “unapproachable light” (1. Timothy 6:16.), to the very throne of God (Hebrews 8:1.). What no other man could had ever done before due to the damage caused by sin, He achieved by the one sacrifice. His crucified body became the bridge between the two irreparably separate realities – earthly and heavenly, never to be un-bridged again. The age of separation, represented by the Holy Place was gone forever, and the age of free access to the Father, represented by the Most Holy Place, had began. Even the veil between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place in the Jewish temple was “torn in two from top to bottom” (Mark 15:38.) at the time of crucifixion, pointing that the end of separation between man and God had gone for good. Through Jesus the access to the Father was now open forever. As C.S. Lewis has put it: “Once crucified Master was now the supreme Agent of the unimaginable Power on whom the whole universe depends”.
Instead of teaching that Jesus Christ Himself is now involved in a complex heavenly intercessory liturgy, which moves him from one location to another across the heavenly divides, during which process various doors are being closed and opened, the Book of Hebrews acknowledges only one location - the very presence of God into which believers are being continually invited to enter “with confidence” (Hebrews 4:16.) “as long as it is called today” (Hebrews 3:13.) through a “new and living way” (Hebrews 10:19-22.) - namely through Jesus Christ. Indeed, by faith and on the account of Jesus' perfect sacrifice, believer may already count himself dwelling in the very presence of God, because “God seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:6.).
Thus, “The right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Heb. 1:3. 8:1., 12:2., Acts 6:55.56.), ”the inner sanctuary behind the curtain” (Heb. 6:19. 10.20), “the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord” (Heb. 8:2) and “the Most Holy Place” (Heb. 9:24), even the Mount Zion (12:22.) and the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22.) – all stand for one and the same reality which is the very throne of God, the city of the living God (10:22), namely the heaven itself (9:24.), where Christians of all ages have been called to come with confidence, freedom and assurance, since the time of Cross and not since 1844.
If the Adventist Church desires to move forward it needs to become honest to the centrality of the Gospel in Jesus Christ, that totally abolishes any affirmative interpretation regarding 1844. Cosmetic changes touching only the cultural aspect of Adventism will not suffice.
http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/10/02/thoughts-on-the-future-of-adv...
From what I've seen, majority of those who seek admission to membership in our Adventist churches - in this country - either through baptism, profession of faith, or transfer from another Adventist congregation have neither been told nor asked if they knew all 28 Fundamental Beliefs. I may be mistaken, so those who have inside knowledge please correct me. In many cases, not all, it's sufficient that they sign a card indicating their desire for inclusion in the Adventist fellowship.
This is in stark contrast with what's happening in my part of the world - the third world - as well as in my immigrant ethnic Adventist community. However, does it matter if newcomers or prospective converts were told or not - in my part of the world? Evidently, it doesn't, since the assumption in this blog - a view that seems to be shared by many, not all, church leaders - is that third world Adventists are composed largely of those who are poor, mostly illiterate and don't think.
Posted by: Joselito Coo | 01 September 2008 at 11:21
*******
Before I was baptized in the TED -- and I grew up in the church -- I received about 9 months of weekly instruction. There were zero assumptions about what I already knew. Pastor visited my house every week and walked me through my week's "homework," which was Bible study via answering questions from a chapter of a little white hardcover catechismic book. I no longer have the book or I'd be able to give the title... but I haven't seen anyone with one of them in years. After the 9 months, you betcha I knew all 27 fundamentals. That was my basis for saying "Yes" to each statement at the "public examination," again, before I was baptized. No "study," no "water." No surprises.
That TED community was a community of first and second-generation immigrants from postcolonial countries. Upwardly mobile -- mostly lower middle-class; highly literate and gungho about education; and predominantly by-the-Manual Adventists.
*******
The above one-of-a-kind commentary, IMO, is so true, yet rarely heard, if at all, even in Adventist academic centers of the third world. AIIAS? Others?
Posted by: Joselito Coo | 01 September 2008 at 12:04
*******
Wasn't heard in the IAD when I was there, Joselito.
*******
...Researchers employed by Adventist institutions of higher learning must conduct research that supports Adventist doctrines, church traditions, and the writings of EGW...
*******
Forgive me if someone has already linked to the church's official statement on academic freedom. "Dissidents" are better off moving on because the primary concern is the institutional "right" to self-protect (e.g. "It is understood that the disciplining of such a church employee who persists in propagating doctrinal views differing from those of the Church is viewed not as a violation of his freedom, but rather as a necessary protection of the Church's integrity and identity. There are corporate church rights as well as individual freedoms. The worker's privileges do not include the license to express views that may injure or destroy the very community that supports and provides for him.")
So here again is a model of union that relies on affinity. I think that's weakness. And I don't mean to be a dissident when I say so.
"KM
Am I to understand that this list of actions or experiences [snip] is a list of IJ related day to day things? I have encountered many of the things on your list, but NEVER has it even crossed my mind that they had anything to do with the IJ." [Michael | 01 September 2008 at 1:19]
Yes. The doctrine is used as a warrant to govern behavior among "God's remnant people" in "the last days," as "public testimony" that you are saved and the Holy Spirit is in you. There are many ways to say it, some more subtle than others, but I have heard it in the IAD and the TED both the hard way and the soft way, and it reduces to the same thing either way.
*******
"Is this another example of different peoples perspectives? I dont know, but the IJ for me is probably important to the extent that all things surrounding the bible and Christ are important, but no more provable one way or the other than is the existance of God so why quibble over different word pictures and discriptions. Even its advocates on both sides will agree that there is simply not enough evidence to know one way or the other." [Michael | 01 September 2008 at 1:19]
It clearly is a perspective issue. I spent 6 or 7 years in the IAD and never once heard the claim that "there was not enough evidence" for the IJ as taught or that it was "not provable." That would've got me slung out of AY, Michael. Ambiguity was not welcome.
I do find comparing the IJ to the existance of God to be a problematic comparison. I hope I'm not the only one.
*******
"Non Salvic = Trivia
Trivia being not nessisarily bad or good in itself. But clearly the ardent triviadors on this subject have fully explored the negative aspects and like Peter, have cut off someones ear on one side or on the other side tried so hard to prove they and their ideas are right that they leave the Church and/or Christianity like Brinsmead et al." [Michael | 01 September 2008 at 1:19]
I'm still not sure what you're suggesting with regard to said trivia, or what else you'd throw in that category. Would the literalism of Christ's resurrection count as trivia? Tribulation being pre-Parousia or post-Parousia? Identifying the Seal of God? Substantiating the Hebrew Exodus outside of Jewish sources? Parsing "the just live by faith" precisely right? Laying context down for "I do not permit a woman to speak"?
Are you saying that if a person comes to a different conclusion on any of these issues than the Church (in session or via voted policy) that the person should keep quiet because it is not profitable to publicly reevaluate an existing conclusion or practice, and the right answer will not save us anyway?
Hi Barry,
Thank you for your sincerity to have real genuine dialogue. I have no problem accepting a pre-advent judgment immediately before Christ's second coming in harmony with all the Bible texts you quoted in your first blog. I can't imagine it lasting any more than a few nanoseconds, since Christ Himself is our judge, and he knows “His sheep.” (See John 5:22 "The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son.")
The problem that the SDA Bible commentary writers wrestled with and did not resolve was using the contextual method of Bible study to prove that an investigative judgment began on 22 October 1844 and is still going on. The context of Daniel 8 is about the little horn tearing down the sanctuary, and not the sins of the saints defiling it. If we still persist in believing this teaching, we are then taking the Bible out of context, and are no different than the Watchtowers or Mormons. Also most modern translations of Daniel 8:14 show the idea of the restoration of the sanctuary - in harmony with the context of it having been torn down by the Little Horn. So our traditional interpretation just does not fit at all.
Nevertheless Barry, I'm open to other "more loose fulfillments" that are beyond the immediate context of the passage. So if we apply it to God's raising up the SDA church to complete the restoration of the sanctuary torn down by the church traditions of the dark ages, with our church's balance of the gospel and law; then let's apply it very humbly to our church and not with the attitude that Daniel 8:14 applies to 1844 and nothing else. My personal opinion is that the great application of these verses applies to the life of Christ where He lived and died that great sacrifice as symbolized by the sanctuary - He certainly restored the sanctuary to its rightful state. He was the great antitype, and how could we at Glacier view deny an application to Calvary and the early church?
Below is a copy of the short-hand notes of Dr. Raymond Cottrell from The Sanctuary Review Committee and its New Consensus located in Spectrum magazine, vol. 11, no. 2 (Nov. 1980), pages 2-26. (The link I have has gone out of date to retrieve it.) This is some of the dialogue that occurred at Glacier View in 1980:
“FRED VELTMAN (chairman, department of religion and biblical languages, Pacific Union College): The New Testament clearly expected an early fulfillment of the promised return of Christ. We cannot use the same arguments as we have in the past.
JAN PAULSEN (secretary, Northern Europe-West Africa Division): We need to consider the "ifs." Let us refer the matter of conditionality back to the groups for further study.
NEALL: We should consider the possibility that the Old Testament prophecies have been reinterpreted by later-inspired writers.
[9]
HARDER: In Matthew 24, Christ interpreted the prophecy of Daniel to His disciples, and in so doing explicitly assigned their fulfillment to the generation of the apostles.
HAMMILL: For twelve years, I have had the uneasy feeling that the eschatological prophecies of the Old Testament could have met their fulfillment in New Testament times. Was the New Testament church deluded in its belief that Christ could have come in that generation? Clearly, the Lord could have come in that time, and if so, the Old Testament prophecies would have met their fulfillment then. Daniel 7 does present the sweep of history, but not to A.D. 2,000.
JAMES LONDIS (pastor, Sligo Church, Takoma Park, Md.): Some of us are not as certain as others seem to be on the matter of conditionality. Are we saying that God intentionally deceived His people for 2,000 years?
GERHARD HASEL (professor of Old Testament, Theological Seminary): It was not a delusion. God's only intention in Daniel 8:14 was to point forward to 1844. (Chorus of "Amens.")” End of quote from Spectrum.
Unfortunately that extreme position taken by Gerhard Hasel is what the GC and South Pacific President wanted to hear, and they used that as one of the reasons to fire Desmond Ford, even though it was contrary to the SDA Bible commentary. We see also the words of Christ himself saying: “this generation shall not pass away”, and Ellen White saying the same thing: “Some of you will be food for worms” and others would witness the second coming of Christ. Since 1844, 163 years have passed, and Christ has not yet come. So I look back at 1844 and the early New Testament church and I see the NT passages as applying to both of those time periods.
While scholars like Raymond Cottrell and Desmond Ford prod us to be true to biblical exegesis, they also believe that in God’s providential leadings our pioneers were not wrong in leading us to the Bible truths about the heavenly sanctuary and pre-advent judgment and that God’s purpose for us is to preach the everlasting gospel of Rev. 14:6-12.
So Barry, I agree with you to keep believing in the pre-advent judgment, and not to throw that belief out with the bathwater.
The Church should not only apologize to Des
It must also apologize to all its members
It must apologize to the world.
And it must then confess seek forgiveness from the Godhead.
Des, the members, and the world must accept that apology and finally the Church must then reorganize on the foundation of the Everlasting Gospel plus nothing. Nothing short of the Truth will do. Tom
Joselito Coo wrote: “is that third world Adventists are composed largely of those who are poor, mostly illiterate and don't think.” Posted by: Joselito Coo | 01 September 2008 at 8:21
Hola Joselito, I have lived in two third world countries: Haiti and now the Dominican Republic. I think that the members of the church here take their religion much more seriously than Adventists do in the United States. The neat thing here is that the people are very accepting and everyone on this blog would feel very welcome. Haiti is much poorer, and yet the most cultured city on this island is Jacmel – a town of sculpture and wood carvers, poets, painters and musicians. I met a professor of Forensic Pathology from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia here in the Dominican Republic, and he had spent about 10 days traveling extensively throughout Haiti. He found Haiti so fascinating that he is planning another trip there. While some of the stereotypes may be true with some people, nevertheless there are so many exceptional people here. Where I attend church it was so refreshing to hear a gospel sermon (right down the lines of the Apostle Paul) and that was right next to the SDA Union Office, and recently there was in another SDA church, a sermon on Hebrews 9 using the NIV translation – the exact same message that Des Ford gave at his forum. Some members now are questioning the validity of the NIV translation because it goes against what was (is) traditionally taught. I suggested to those members to study the context of Hebrews 9 and then see if the NIV is in harmony with the context.
Regarding being “illiterate” – not only is that not true, but since Dr. Leonel Fernandez came to power there has been a big push to help the people to become “computer-literate” and “internet-literate.”
Saludos,
Mike
Joselito: sorry for not quoting you correctly above, as you were quoting from one of the other blogs. I am 100% with you to remove those stereotypes.
KM
Good example questions.
Would the literalism of Christ's resurrection count as trivia?
Definitly part of salvation. Not trivia.
Tribulation being pre-Parousia or post-Parousia?
Since one would have to discribe what Parousia even means to a baby Christian then yes. Trivia.
Identifying the Seal of God?
Doesnt have to be known by that discription but yes it is found in the 10 commandments. Not trivia.
Substantiating the Hebrew Exodus outside of Jewish sources?
Can if you want. Not salvic. Trivia.
Parsing "the just live by faith" precisely right?
Precisely right? People cant even parse the easy ones anymore like homosexuality. The gospel should be easy and clear enough for a child to understand. Precisely right parsing? Trivia if parsing actually means making it say whatever you want it to say.
Laying context down for "I do not permit a woman to speak"?
If I answer yes, can I get into heaven? If I answer no same thing? If the answer, I dont really know for sure but If I did I would go by it, (otherwise known as blessed are the pure in heart) will work then yes. Trivia.
"Are you saying that if a person comes to a different conclusion on any of these issues than the Church (in session or via voted policy) that the person should keep quiet because it is not profitable to publicly reevaluate an existing conclusion or practice, and the right answer will not save us anyway?"
I'm saying the jews had a ton of the right answers on different things and it didnt save them.
I'm saying that a person CAN come to different conclusions on different things and that it not make 1 whit of difference to their salvation.
In short, certain things are worth fighting for and certain things are not.
I find Dave Larson's report that he never heard a sermon about the IJ in his SDA church experience, and has never been asked what he thinks about the IJ as an SDA minister very interesting and informative. It is a reminder of how diverse even the seemingly homogeneous Adventist experience is. My own story is rather different.
I grew up in a small church far removed (culturally) from both Angwin and Loma Linda, and I was regularly bombarded with sermons based explicitly and implicitly on the IJ. As a pre-teen I would have trouble falling asleep as I worried about whether my name was even then being called up, and I being found wanting. As a Religion major at PUC in the late 1970s I sat through many (all too many) theology classes in which the IJ was made to be the single most important theological point. I vividly remember a typical class period in which a PUC Religion Professor made it very clear that any Theology major who questioned the traditional interpretation of the IJ would never get a call to pastor a church, since he personally would make sure it did not happen. Luckily my vocation was not the pastoral ministry, but I had friends at the time whose career, church involvement and spiritual lives were devastated by such attitudes.
The first Week of Prayer I attended as a Freshman at PUC was conducted by Elder Ford, and I have always felt that in a real way it saved my life. I found later that I was not a "Fordian" in my theology, but I also realized that I never would have found the grace of the Gospel of Jesus in Adventism - and maybe not anywhere else - if it had not been for him. In the wake of Glacier View I had many long dark nights when I wondered if I would ever be able to remain associated with the Adventist Church. One of the anchors that brought me back was the personal grace, love and peace that Elder Ford always brought to these conversations with his students.
To Joselito,
I want to acknowledge the notice you give to my commentary on the gospel in so-called third-world settings in your post of 01 September 2008 at 9:04. I am happy you have noticed it, and sad that there is not a wider and better known community of discussion about the differences culture and social order make for theology within the global Adventist church. As a teacher of social science, as well as religion broadly and comparatively understood, this kind of perspective seems obvious and necessary to me. I am hoping more people like you and like my friend and colleague Julius Nam will draw on your cross-cultural knowledge and experience to give better substance and texture to bare abstract insights like the one I tried to articulate.
This comes in response to PLM's comment:
----------------
As a young person who heard Dr. Ford speak many times, I never heard criticism or "poor me" speeches or sermons--on the contrary, only a total focus on Jesus, a gentlemanly, Christ-like response when asked questions about Glacier View issues, and a total focus on the Everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ.
----------------
I can confirm that this is the exact style that Dr Ford preaches with today! I will repeat my link to YouTube, where you can watch his sermons from as recent as last week:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=pangear
"Identifying the Seal of God?
Doesnt have to be known by that discription but yes it is found in the 10 commandments. Not trivia."
I acknowledge my ignorance, but please tell me where "the Seal of God" is found in any of the 3 versions of the 10 Commandments?
Elaine
A very good question. I see a parallel in the question that Jesus asked. Is it easier to say "Thy sins be forgiven thee than to say Take up thy bed and walk?" What is the seal of God? Creation, Healing, Or Redemption? The primary question is: "What think ye of Jesus Christ? Whose Son is He?
One can say more but one cannot say less that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Des needs no defense.
The IJ has no defense. Ellen White "Stole" it from a disappointed farmer--it has no canonical foundation.
Much to do about nothing: except institutionalism. Tom
I acknowledge my ignorance, but please tell me where "the Seal of God" is found in any of the 3 versions of the 10 Commandments?
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 01 September 2008 at 3:47
I assumed the question was made relative to its least favorable discription on Spectrum. That of some Revelation seminars. Towards the end some evangelists contrast the mark of the beast with the seal of God.
Are you familiar with that?
Michael...
To chime in on the seal of God...
I'm aware of the traditional Adventist ID of the seal as the Sabbath. I remember being introduced to the idea when I first came into the church, through a drawn out study that cobbled together ancient concepts of ownership and the identifying marks of a king's seal.
How suprised was I after such involved study to then read simple,straightforward NT texts like these that were never included in those initial studies:
"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit..." Eph. 1:13
"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." Eph. 4:30
So, I found the NT clearly and simply saying that the seal of God was the Spirit of God himself, while I was taught in my introductory studies to Adventism that it was one of the commandments of the law.
Never mind the issues of shadow vs.substance or the relationship of law and gospel that this brings up. Those are conversations that could go on ad infinitum. But what I have found particularly troubling about this is that in all my years in the church, I have still never seen a prepared introductory study for new believers on this subject (whether from VOP, AF, etc.) that makes reference to what the NT clearly states...that the Holy Spirit is God's seal on the believer. It almost seems like that in the zeal to prove that the Sabbath is the seal, these texts are avoided so as not to muddy the waters. In fact, when I once brought these texts out in a SS class that I was teaching, I could sense the suspicion and uneasiness of longtime members, who have lived all their lives believing the traditional Adventist view.
I bring this up, because I believe this is part of the wider issue that we are discussing on this thread as well as others like it...that Adventism, unlike our popular boasts, has its own entrenched traditional beliefs just like other denominations. To challenge them openly can bring reactions like those I just described, all the way to what people like Desmond Ford and others like him have experienced.
When claims are made of possessing absolute truth, despite what the preamble to our FB/creed states, one must proceed at their own risk. I guess we aren't above the history of organized religion.
Thanks...
Frank
Which is why I asked it, and the comment made:
"Not trivia."
Is the seal of God trivia? Or that it is supposed to be found in the Ten Commandments? Unclear.
Frank,
I know of what you speak. Some of my experiences are the same.
I would only ask 1 question.
Does God have more that 1 seal? More specifically does/can he seal different people for different things?
What has your study of the seals found? You'll find scrolls sealed, people sealed, holy spirit sealed, but the seal of God texts are the only ones who have that title or discription.
I will not claim to be an expert in this are but I am of the persuasion that they are not all the same thing.
Do you have this understanding as well?
Also the texts which talk of the seal of God dont give any middle ground. You can cross check the examples you gave by asking, If one doesnt have those seals does that mean they then have the mark of the beast?
It may serve to ask if they dont, then maybe its because they are not the same seals being talked about.
Thanks
Aubyn
Over the years I have met many men and women whose stories are much like your own. For one reason or the other they found themselves in deep dispair about their relationhship with God and it was Doctor Ford's proclamation of his understanding of the gospel that turned things around. For this he has my gratitude and respect.
Dave
I appreciate your observation Dave. Though of course in my case it was not one reason or another, it was specifically the IJ that was preached about at great length from the pulpit of my church.
And I was not really experiencing despair about my relationship with God, but terror regarding my ability to thread the needle and meet the criteria necessary to avoid a future of being as though I never was (as one of my Pastors used to like to put it). Elder Ford helped me understand that it was the relationship that mattered, not all those criteria (I don't recall much talk about the IJ in that first encounter with Elder's Ford's message, and it would be several years before I even came close to understanding the technical argument). I agree with Greg - I don't think there was all that much about the IJ in his teaching and preaching - at least not much that I absorbed. But I went home that first Christmas break from PUC and spent three weeks scandalizing my Pastor and his elders (and enchanting my friends and many of their parents) with the first reports of a gospel that blew holes deep and wide in their perfectionism.
I had been battered about the head and soul by IJ preaching throughout my childhood and adolescence - and again later by Religion Professors at PUC. While I eventually came to understand the relationship with God in somewhat different terms than Elder Ford - being freed up to think about the relationship and not the criteria was a crucial first step, that logically leads away from the IJ quite aside from the technical issues.
Hi Dave,
Well, on one thing, at least, you and I agree: when it comes to events at PUC leading up to Glacier View, you just don’t get it (as per your post, 31 August 2008 at 6:52). I recall what you said to me immediately after our “Red Books” performance at the Forum Conference last September: “Does anybody really know what happened at ‘the crash?’” I had to agree that no one knew fully. So maybe no one fully “gets it” with regard to PUC, Des Ford, and Glacier View. Nevertheless, as the following will show, I think I get it better than you. Are you still smiling?
I will start with your understanding of yourself as being moved by an old-fashioned liberal evolutionary view of “theological change,” I think this self-understanding is a set of blinders that prevents you getting it, or at least getting what I wish you’d get.
Let’s follow the logic, for instance, of the course of action, or inaction, your evolutionary view appears to imply. Proposition: the IJ is so outmoded and irrelevant a teaching that in all the years since your birth you have never heard anyone preach it, teach it seriously, or be curious about it, and, by extension of your own experience, you suspect “it has long since ceased being a central feature of the day-to-day experience walk with God of SDAs.” (as per your lesson in Church Leadership 101 in your post of 31 August 2008 at 1:05) Evolutionary deduction: Don’t be so “unhinged” as to kick the sleeping dog.
But wait, if the IJ was and is so outmoded and irrelevant, shouldn’t this doctrinal dog be so toothless that it doesn’t matter much whether we wake it up or not? If, on the other hand, this sleeping dog is genuinely dangerous, it is not outmoded and irrelevant and we are nowhere close to “evolving” beyond it..
I think your reaction to the IJ controversy at PUC is not well explained by the evolution-over-revolution perspective you profess. I think the common sense “don’t kick sleeping dogs” maxim better explains why you concluded that we at PUC must have become “unhinged.” The maxim serves to protect the bubble of safety within which SDA academics can ply their trade with one another and with their respective non-SDA professional reference groups without the SDA pastoral K-9 patrol sniffing around and snapping at us. It is a quid pro quo by which teachers acquiesce to a quarantined 2nd-class status within the body of Christ, subject to the domination of the pastors (see Ephesians 4:11, 12) in exchange for the limited and varying degrees of autonomy available within our assorted campus bubbles.
This longstanding institutional/political common sense suggests furthermore that when the dogs wake up and go on the attack, they probably were provoked, and whoever gets bitten likely asked for it. The “probably” and “likely” turned to near certainty in the case of Des Ford because he never quite paid the expected obeisance to the SDA academic guild, and he was, furthermore, foolish enough to take his theology on the road to the many pews outside the academic bubble.
Those residing within bubbles exceptionally well-insulated by institutional and financial arrangements, like Loma Linda, or in bubbles fortunate enough to have supportive pastoral police, like Walla Walla in the 1980s, have been prone to self-congratulation on how their superior wisdom, maturity, and judgment forestalled a fate like PUC’s. That invidious judgment was unmistakable in Malcolm Maxwell, our White Knight riding in from Walla Walla to rescue us from ourselves in the aftermath of Glacier View. It was equally apparent in a flip remark by a Loma Linda colleague during the national Forum Conference in Santa Rosa, CA, this past September in reference to Des’s address on the IJ, “When you want to introduce to new theological position why would you choose air it in room full of old ladies with blue hair?” And I’m afraid I find it apparent in your posts here.
I hasten to add that Malcolm brought so many virtues to his leadership of PUC and cared so deeply for the school and for all of us in the community, that we could not help but love him--and mourn deeply his premature death. I hasten just as much to add that I have always found you and your contributions to our community indispensable. I feel the same way about the unnamed colleague who made the crack about ladies with blue hair. I ask myself, “How can I be so exasperated with people I like so much?” It’s one of those dilemmas I’ll just have to live with.
That said, I have more to say about “hermeneutical hubris.” I really do hope you are still smiling.
I find your reaction to Aage Rendalen’s quote from W. W. Fletcher (posted 31 August 2008 at 6:40) really curious. The “hermeneutical hubris” judgment against him is yours, and you obviously feel really strongly about it. But my friend, do you really think your professed evolutionary perspective entails less hubris? Essential to the kind of evolution you envisage is the notion that history is progressing and that you know the direction of the progress, you have the insider’s view which theologies will survive and which lose out. It seems an Olympian perspective to me. Yet the empirical reality revealed by posts like KM’s (01 September 2008 at 7:43) and Aubyn Fulton’s (01 September 2008 at 4:03) suggests a certain lack of fit with the unilinear progress your old-time (process metaphysical?) liberalism assumes. Your version of doctrinal evolution recalls for me a lot of the 19th and early 20th century evolutionary theories of history and culture which generally managed make European industrial colonizing civilization the pinnacle of human progress. Anthropology and Sociology as intellectual disciplines have been trying “repent” of these presumptions for decades now, but still haven’t shaken them.
I would also point out that your appeal to the analogy of TULIP among Presbyterians does not seem to me to work very well with the historical record. My sense of the fate of orthodox predestinarian Calvinism in American history, at least, is that it faded in no small part because it was explicitly, vigorously, and mostly successfully attacked by people with competing theological perspectives, many within the Calvinist denominations and many without. Yes, there was conflict and schism, and lots of uncharity and hubris on all sides. But I don’t think the historical record supports a presumption of inexorable evolutionary progress which human action can only facilitate or impede. I think history is a mess of events, not a developmental sequence, and that human agency has a lot to do with deciding what happens and does not happen.
If an evolutionary perspective does describe the history of theological ideas, it is one closer to a metaphor of natural selection emerging out of conflict and competition. I think and hope that human beings can keep the conflict and competition from turning violent, but I don’t think things evolve without the conflict. Des’s IJ address was a legitimate event on a college campus where a civil conflict and competition of ideas is supposed to happen. The actions of SDA leadership suppressed whatever progress might have come out of that event, and the failure of most SDA religion academics to rally to Des’s defense reflected, at the least, our institutional and political weakness. More than that--and now I fear you have definitely stopped smiling--that failure to act in solidarity reflected a self-serving willingness to let an inconvenient colleague be sacrificed for the sake of a false peace.
OK, so now I’ve said some things that, for me, have been a long time coming. If, in fact, you are still smiling, I shall be grateful, and even if you are not, I have confidence in you to hold by your stated position that attacking someone’s convictions and demanding they apologize for them is not a good way to persuade them to improve their beliefs. Thanks for listening.
Greg
Greg
You of course are right, particularly when the group being addressed is proud of and opening proclaims it "has" all of the truth. On the other hand, it is a "truth" that will die with them! Should they not at least be warned of their ultimate fate?
I can understand a post- Parusia review of the records so that the saved might know why certain loved ones are not among the saved. But when the earth has been the stage to the universe for the Great Controversy and its inhabitants have had front row seats-why a return to the "archives"?
Since it is the only contribution to theology the SDA church has made--it has such a propriatary hold on it -- it would rather die than admit an error.
Institutional death is not a pretty sight. But at the expense of the eternal death of precious souls it pales into insignificance. Noah built a boat at the bidding of the Lord.
The SDA church built a raft at the bidding of EGW. That won't hold water. Tom
Tom
"The maxim serves to protect the bubble of safety within which SDA academics can ply their trade with one another and with their respective non-SDA professional reference groups without the SDA pastoral K-9 patrol sniffing around and snapping at us. It is a quid pro quo by which teachers acquiesce to a quarantined 2nd-class status within the body of Christ, subject to the domination of the pastors (see Ephesians 4:11, 12) in exchange for the limited and varying degrees of autonomy available within our assorted campus bubbles."
This sounds like the same old story of Pastor vs Teacher grind I've heard and dealt with for years. From the makeup of the remuneration committeee and compensation packages all the way to who gets the most days off.
Teachers and Ministers have different responsibilities. Teachers arent the shepards but some see themselves as mentally superior.
"The “probably” and “likely” turned to near certainty in the case of Des Ford because he never quite paid the expected obeisance to the SDA academic guild, and he was, furthermore, foolish enough to take his theology on the road to the many pews outside the academic bubble."
If he had discussed it with the correct people until a determination could have been made he might have appeared less like he was trying to bypass them and garner the lay persons support ala Vladamir Lenin.
Even his critics will concede he is a fine preacher and has his own appeal. It may be years later where one is able to seperate the substance from the experience as Bill Cork discribes.
Aubyn
The more I hear about your early years the more sorrowful I become.
I can't imagine a Christian minister terrorizing a child with the prospect that if he doesn't meet some moral standard he will be as though he never were.
Again, I'm grateful that Doctor Ford's preaching of the gospel reached you when it did! Otherwise, where might you be today?
I do have a vague recollection, the time and place of which I cannot pinpoint, of someone up front--not at church--telling a restless bunch of us in our early teens or teens that we had better be good because our names might come up in the IJ at anytime without us even knowing it.
I also recall thinking to myself, "Well, now, I don't see what difference it makes when my name 'comes up' because I will be the same person before and after that moment and God will treat me fairly no matter when."
P.S.: Some who knew my deceased father as "very strict" doubt my veracity. Jon Paulien explained this at his memorial service one year ago this weekend.
Knowing him well in both contexts, Jon said that my father was very strict in public and not at all at home. That really helped me understand!
Also, my dad never doubted that God would treat him fairly. I think this made it virtually impossible for him to understand from the inside, as it were, that people actually do lie awake at night worrying about whether they will "pass the test" on Judgement Day.
I can't imagine my Dad doing such thing! Bronwen, my wife, says that he was a legalist but not a perfectionist. This also helps me understand.
Greg
Sure, I'm still smilling! Why not?
1. We agree that there is much that I "don't get." Also, as I earlier stated, I defer to you because you were there.
I offer only this possible caveat: perhaps it is possible to be too close to a situation--physically, emotionally, theologically, etc-- to see everythhing that is taking place.
This might suggest the value of both a "worm's eye" and a "bird's eye" view. But still, you were [and are] there and I wasn't.
2. Some quick clarifications: (a) I don't believe in inevitable historical progress; (b) IJ is alive and well and even hurtful in some parts of SDAism, as I am learning; (c) I'm not attracted to referring to people as "sleeping dogs," though I get the point.
3. I'd like to push back a little on the issue of hermeneutical hubris. I do believe that anyone who thinks he or she is preaching THE ONE AND ONLY CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOSPEL is awash in self-deluding and arrogant violations of the Third Commandment.
I do take offense whenever I feeling this attitude coming my way, whether from the right, middle or left. If that's hubris on my part, I am guilty as charged.
And my remarks about hermeneutical hubris pertained to Fletcher and not Aage, right? I think he knows this.
3. I think it might be worth reconsidering the narrative that Doctor Ford was attacked by SDAism's theological right and abandoned by its left.
I'm not certain I could provide a satisfactory answer if I were forced to declare on a stack of Bibles whether the flatness of the earth is round like a dinner plate or rectangular like a sheet of paper.
Whether Jesus entered the most holy apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in the first or ninetheenth century struck many, both in the SDA academy and in GC administration at the time, of which I have personal knowlege, as that kind of question.
It surprises me that all these years later some still fault the "left" for not taking sides in this kind of fight, particularly when it seemed not to have been purely theological.
Let's add this to the list of things I "don't get."
4. I gather that you think that some around the circle believe that some of our colleagues at PUC showed lack of good judgment in this matter. This is my view.
I do not fault Doctor Ford in this regard, because he did nothing worse than to accept an invitation to speak at an Adventist Forum meeting. But I do I regret how the AF chapter handled things.
I say this as one who over the years has invested some time, money and energy in AF activities. We could have done better, I think, and we should have.
Example: It is a well-known axiom that one tries not to fight two intense battles (perfectionism & IJ, for example) at the same time and place. It is often better to do some things sequentially than simultaneously.
5. More generally, it seemed to me, from my great distance, that there were some on your campus in those days that might have been more effective if they had been serving elsewhere, either because they lacked appropriate academic preparation or maturity or both.
I did not think this of you. Neither did I think this of Doctor Ford. But I did think it of some others and I still do.
6. In that general time it seemed to that some of my colleagues at PUC treated doctrinal difficulties like youngsters who were just learning about sex: lots of jokes, giggles, knowing glances, secret whispers that no one find out what they were doing in the dark, making fun of their elders who certainly didn't know "the facts of life," no tape recordings [as though God doesn't hear everything anyway], silly and disresectful songs and the like.
Every now and then, though very rarely, some freshmen medical student(s) on our campus act these ways in our human anatomy lab. It doesn't last long. I don't see why this sort of thing should last any longer on a SDA liberal arts campus.
Perhaps I have misjudged things all these years and that in fact all my colleagues at PUC at the time were as prepared, both acadmically and emotionally, to be there as you were. If so, please correct my faulty vision.
Thank you, Greg. These exchanges are very helpful to me. I think they that they also may be helpful to others around the world who may be following the discussion.
I take it as a given that the purpose of our give and take is not to persuade the other of one's own view of things, but to have the opportunity to see things from more than one angle of vision.
You have given me this precious gift and I am grateful for it.
All the best!
Dave
Dave
I have no problems seeing where you're coming from. You obviously care far more about community than arcane theology. That's not only commendable, it's the way it should be. And I hope that that was a prominent motive in the mind of those who opposed the 1844 dogmas.
The problem with the classic 1844 dogmas is that they are destructive of community. They drive a spike into the heart of those who see Christianity as a fellowship around a person--as opposed to a hermetic society dispensing secret knowledge in evening classes.
1844 at best turns the Christian faith into a graduate seminar in theology, at worst a divisive, sectarian force within Christianity. It's destructive of community within but just as importantly, without. I think Father Jim from Grand Forks made that point eloquently on a previous thread.
I know nothing about Fletcher apart from what he's written. Like most of us he no doubt succumbed to hubris at times. What matters to me is that chose to make a stand on something that mattered.
I'm not a person of faith but I can see myself, under the right circumstances, fellowshipping with believers. I share many of their hopes and values, as well as personal history. What offends me is not faith but obscurantism and the very triumphalism (hubris) that you yourself so resent.
I think I can add three items that have not been mentioned here.
1) The setting of theological education at PUC. I was a theology student here from 1972-76.
Sinless perfection through the MHP ministry of Jesus was most definitely taught by more than one significant teacher in the religion department during this time.
In addition, we were taught that the 2300-day prophecy and IJ were the only unique contributions of Adventism. It was the hub of all the other spokes of our teaching. Like a house of cards, if it fell, the perfect system fell. We were taught this almost in those exact words. In hindsight this is neither true nor a balanced view of the total revelation in scripture or the teachings of Jesus. But it was triumphalistically taught. We would all achieve sinless perfection in the last generation, through the ministry of Jesus plus our complete renunciation of sin in the antitypical day of atonement.
The context of Daniel 8 is the judgment scene of Daniel 7. Yet they never, ever talked about the judgment of the Little Horn, the opponent of God's people. It was always against professed believers, as the IJ was commonly presented. In retrospect the judgment so many Adventists taught was a vindication of the Little Horn rather than a vindication of the saints. (I'm not making a hermeneutical argument on Daniel 7-9 here, I'm simply reporting what others taught at the time.)
It is in that context that Ford's teaching was, indeed, shocking to a great number of people.
2) Our denominational theological change has occurred both cataclysmically and through evolution.
Some matters were cleaned up immediately, such as a) the exchange of nomenclature--an "investigative" judgment for a "pre-advent" judgment, probably to remove so much of the SDA baggage that traveled with IJ; b) the admission that Daniel 7 is talking about judgment on the Little Horn, not God's people.
Other matters happened slowly. Journals and books simply quit talking about it, and quit quoting Ellen White. Compare The Review of the Wood era to that of the Johnsson era. By ignoring we become changed.
As I teach one section of Life and Teachings of Jesus at PUC I am constantly amazed at the ignorance about both Ellen White and the 2300 days. 2/3 don't know or care. 1/6 are angry because they're parents are angry. 1/6 have a mild knowledge and practical interest. The saddest part is that these same fractions fit student knowledge on the doctrine of salvation, the Holy Spirit, etc. God has become a smiley face to affix to all of our opinions and practices, however subjective or poorly considered they might be.
3) The emphasis on the Pre-Advent judgment has changed from uncertainty to assurance. Thank God. Scholarly proponents achieve golden boy status and travel to pastors meetings and campmeetings announcing the good news. However, let's be honest--such teaching bears no resemblance to the teachings about the IJ in The Great Controversy.
So we still have challenges, no?
-- Tim
Tim, what about if we promote the idea of the church expressing gratitude to Dr. Ford for helping us achieve in part what you just mentioned in your blog under Point 3?
Also since the wording of the Glacier View consensus statement is in harmony with several of Dr. Ford's key points, gratitude should be expressed to him, because his manuscript was the book under study at Glacier View. The consensus statement should be resurrected as well. (Instead of treating it like the 1919 Bible Conference minutes, but to keep my blog 100% positive, I will finish on the positive that the 1919 Bible Conference minutes were found and shared with the church - by Spectrum.)
The fact that Dr. Ford is saying that he still believes in the pre-advent judgment, and that he simply wants it to be expressed in a better way in accordance with the good news of the gospel, is evidence that he doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
What do I know for sure?
That Christ died for my sins-
That He rose the third day according to Scriptures
That He ascended on high
That He sits on the Right hand of the Father, God Almighty
That He will come again
That He will take me home with him.
He will not take the Seventh-day Adventist Church with Him
Neither will He take Spectrum with Him
And He certainly will not take my filing cabinet with Him.
Nor the minutes of 1919 or Glacier View.
So let us talk about the sure things: Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. I expect to seek a lot of bloggers there and some who never saw a keyboard. We will have a level playing field.
Not a mumbling word. Tom
Bill,
You say, "A criticism that used to be made was that no Adventist scholar could get a non-Adventist publisher to publish SDA exegesis on, say, Leviticus 11(16). Well, take a look at Roy Gane's 2004 volume on Leviticus and Numbers that's part of the NIV Application Commentary series published by Zondervan."
Is that really the context of the remark "SDA Exegesis being published" and thought or is it for an SDA scholar to relate Lev.16 to Dan. 8:14 and Christ not entering the Most Holy until 1844 according to our position being published by a non SDA publication?
I suggest one can have good exegesis on aspects of an OT book/chapter and miss it's bigger application as it relates to the NT application given by the NT writers.
As regards to your "Luther studies" are you suggesting Luther did not hold a "forensic" view of atonement and JBF alone? Exactly on this topic alone (not "limited atonment") how does Des differ from the "classical view" of Luther and Calvin in your opinion?
regards,
pat
Dave - thanks again for your additional, empathic comments - and the stories of your father. I should absolve my own parents of any guilt in my late night terrors, which I trace back entirely to the frequent message I heard from the pulpit. My flaw (well, one of them) was that I was the one in our family who actually took the Pastor's sermons seriously and dissected them for days afterward. How much misery would the human race be spared if more people took their pastor's sermons less seriously? Though now I must point out this does not pertain to my current Church Pastor, who as all can see from his wisdom here is on the side of the liberation. I suspect that if I had grown up in Pastor Mitchell's church I would have had many more peaceful nights.
I want to intrude a bit into one of your responses to Greg if that is all right (this one):
*****************
"I'm not certain I could provide a satisfactory answer if I were forced to declare on a stack of Bibles whether the flatness of the earth is round like a dinner plate or rectangular like a sheet of paper.
Whether Jesus entered the most holy apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in the first or ninetheenth century struck many, both in the SDA academy and in GC administration at the time, of which I have personal knowlege, as that kind of question.
It surprises me that all these years later some still fault the "left" for not taking sides in this kind of fight, particularly when it seemed not to have been purely theological. Let's add this to the list of things I "don't get."
***************
I am familiar with this this kind of scholastic conversation, but really I have very little memory of it taking a primary place prior to Elder Ford's Forum talk (perhaps it did and I was just too stupid to recognize it at the time). What I remember was hearing Elder Ford's liberating presentation of the gospel, then slowly and gradually realizing that if what he said was right it was problematic for theological positions like the IJ. I remember a lot of rumor, speculation and argument about this (including with the famous Kevin Paulson, a year behind me, who I saw with a smile was referenced on this thread) and I remember being intensely interested in finding a way to have the liberating message make sense in the context of the SDA theology I had been reared on, and wanting to learn more about how to do that. I was scheduled to take a course - it was either Daniel or the Sanctuary - from Elder Ford in the Winter quarter of 1980, but as it happened he was suddenly not available to teach it, and was replaced by Professor Gane. It took me a lot longer to work my way through all of this as a result.
If a young Dr. Larson (or someone like you) had come to PUC then to give a talk on how the IJ or the entire Sanctuary superstructure was as irrelevant and wrong headed as the flat earth theory it would have been a big help to me (and dozens more like me at PUC in those days). Alas, I did not see many people willing to say (or even whisper) such things out loud then - certainly not in Angwin.
I think your analogy misses a lot, but if I had to use it I would say that the dominant group was teaching that the earth was flat like a rectangle, and arguing that any disagreement with that would cost a man his soul. In that context, the suggestion that there was another way of thinking about things, even as relatively minor a difference as rounding the corners, was powerfully liberating. Even more so because, unlike your analogy, the rounded corners of Elder Ford's view opened up multiple possibilities, and more importantly, let the son-shine in.
Even at this distance, and at my advancing age, I do feel a twinge at the thought that there were some (perhaps many?) Adventist Theologians who knew better then and stood by and did and said nothing (at least not within the vision and hearing of many of us who sorely needed to see and to hear). I guess I do wish more of the so-called "left" had taken up the fight. I think whatever evolution the Adventist Community had coming has been profoundly retarded as a result.
We have been agitating and stirring the dirty bathwater for nearly 30 years now. Most babies would have perished in the cold water, but this Baby has quietly stepped out of the bathtub and moved outside into the glorious warmth and light and freedom of the Gospel He is gently saying: "Come unto Me and I will give you rest". Isn't it time we focussed on the "Living Water" rather than the residue in the bathtub?
Aubyn: I hope you don't mind me saying this...but I remember you proclaiming that it was a 'dark day' when Ronald Reagan was elected President! Was that mixing Adventist eschatology with politics? And wasn't it 'fun' to listen to Kevin Paulson debate the 'New Theology'? I had many conversations with Mark Martin, who agreed completely with Dr. Ford, and who now pastors a huge Calvary Chapel megachurch in Phoenix, Arizona. Just before the Forum lecture, he told me that it was going to be as big as Jones and Waggoner in 1888. It seems that he was right.
To all: Where are the teachings of Jesus in all of this madness? This question applies to both the liberal and conservative sides of this explosive issue. Do the teachings of Jesus support either side? When I meet Jesus face to face, I doubt that He will discuss 1844. I have a feeling that He will discuss whether or not I did what He told me to do in His teachings. Time will tell...
Regrettably overlooked in the IJ debate is Daniel’s “Mini 1844.” Using the correct interpretation of Daniel 8:14 as 1150 days, and placing the passage within its proper context of chapter 9:24-27 brings you precisely within the time frame of two strategic events. Count 1150 days back from Calvary and you come to an amazing starting point for this prophetic timeline - Christ’s “cleansing” of the temple sanctuary recorded in John chapter 2. Daniel 8:14 was fulfilled at Calvary. No other interpretation of the passage makes any sense. The math is provided for you in the publication “Good News for Adventists,” March, 2007. Or click on: http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/home/skypage.php?keyid=298&parentke...
orthodoxymoron - I don't mind at all (I am trying to remember that name on the room check sheets). I do remember wandering in a daze through the lobby of Newton Hall the day after the 1980 election, screaming at the sudden realization that it was Ronald Reagen and not Antiochus Epiphanes who was the little horn. That the next 8 years proved I was right was little comfort...
The funny thing about that is that, for all my memorable theological arguments with Kevin, we were on the same side politically. He was the first person I ever met (but not the last) who had a conservative theology and a liberal politics. I wonder if that is still true?
Tom,
You address me in your post of 02 September 2008 at 3:45, but I think you are actually speaking to someone else’s points, Frank’s I think. BTW, a belated thank-you for your early “Well done” in response to my review.
Michael,
“This sounds like the same old story of Pastor vs Teacher grind I've heard and dealt with for years. From the makeup of the remuneration committeee and compensation packages all the way to who gets the most days off.
Teachers and Ministers have different responsibilities. Teachers arent the shepards but some see themselves as mentally superior.”Michael | 02 September 2008 at 6:28
Of course teachers and ministers have different responsibilities. The point of my remarks is that Ministers, “shepards” (sic), while having preponderance of power over teachers in our institutional system, do not in general understand, appreciate, or respect the role of teachers in the Body of Christ. I have nothing to say about pay or “days off,” whatever that latter phrase might mean among professionals who do not punch time clocks (though if certain administrators got their way. . . .). I would simply highlight items like the following:
**The high-handed, dishonest, personality-and-power driven actions of Neal Wilson with regard to Des Ford.
**The ignorant arrogance of our own Pacific Union President and PUC board chair prior to Glacier View when he admitted he had not read Ford’s study-leave document--“Why should I read it when I know it is wrong?” and his blood lust for purging the Union and the college post-Glacier View--“If I have my way, heads are going to roll!”--a remark proclaimed to a ministerial workers meeting.
**The Soviet-style bureaucratic surveillance plans of Robert Folkenberg in his IBMTE initiative.
**The efforts of the North Pacific Union President and board chair to purge the Religion department at Walla Walla, a group distinguished for its efforts to reach beyond the academic bubble and share the insights of their scholarship with the wider constituencies of the church..
As it happened, Folkenberg did not succeed in imposing the IBMTE on the church’s academics and our Union president back in Glacier View days came to see that it was not in his interest to tear the college apart. The rather nauseating irony involved in both instances, is that it was financial scandal that took the wind out of their sails--conflict of interest misjudgment on Folkenberg’s part, and a more general guilt-by-association with the Davenport scandals in the case of purge-minded pastoral leaders in the Pacific Union.. So, leaving aside who may or may not be mentally superior, I say only that the men who have made their way up the SDA church organization have, by their actions and attitudes during my career, mostly forfeited my trust and respect. I have little hope that they will see that my colleagues and I are as much the church as they, that it is our church as much as it is theirs, and that we are as much authorities as they in the determination of its needs and course of development.
The reflex assumption that academics must perpetually be kept under the thumbs of ecclesiastics is in marked contrast to a Mennonite denomination, for example, whose college president was a presenter one year in the late 1990s at a PUC faculty colloquy. He remarked that denominational leadership looked to the college faculty regularly for guidance in how to provide long-term leadership and direction for the entire denomination. He spoke so placidly and with such a sense of the obvious propriety of such a mutually respectful partnership between pastors and teachers, that he was unprepared for the audible gasps and undertone buzz that broke out around the room when he said this. We in the Adventist tradition seem incapable of imagining and implementing such a genuinely mutually respectful partnership between pastors and teachers.
“If he had discussed it with the correct people until a determination could have been made he might have appeared less like he was trying to bypass them and garner the lay persons support ala Vladamir Lenin.
Even his critics will concede he is a fine preacher and has his own appeal. It may be years later where one is able to separate the substance from the experience as Bill Cork discribes.”
It will help get substance straight if we clarify what, exactly, Des took to the pews. He never took his challenge to the IJ on the road, either before or after Glacier View. It was the gospel, his ever-resounding theme of justification by faith that he felt compelled to share. Why that should need to be vetted through some group of putative “correct people” is a mystery to me. And who are these “correct people?” What set of “courtiers” surrounding the “Czar” are you conjuring up to set over against your image of Des Ford as Vladimir Lenin?
Kevin Ferris: Very interesting Kevin. I believe in the application whether the days fit or not, because the whole sanctuary system was symbolic of Christ. It's the greatest application of all time.
By the way did Pastor Jan Paulsen ever reply to your letter that you wrote in the year 2000 and that was published in Adventist Today?
P.S. Are you a 3rd of 4th generation Adventist? (descendants from the famous Australian missionaries and pastors)
The following statement by Aubyn Fulton sure resonated with me! "Even at this distance, and at my advancing age, I do feel a twinge at the thought that there were some (perhaps many?) Adventist Theologians who knew better then and stood by and did and said nothing (at least not within the vision and hearing of many of us who sorely needed to see and to hear)."
My deliverance from the tyranny of the Investigative Judgment and associated doctrines was bitter-sweet. I initially felt angry that I had been betrayed for so long, and that I had lived my life and taught my children a wrong perception of God and His requirements. At the same time I felt such a freedom & joy, as my mind was released from the conflicts that I had experienced trying to balance Bible teachings and SDA/Ellen White theology. As a child raised in Angwin, and one who went to school at MBA, PUC and LLU in a very conservative era, my life was much affected by the expectations demanded by my education and environment.
Because I was conscientious, it came down to every detail of my life. Every aspect of my life was regulated by Ellen White because I had no other viable options. Most outside reading, relationships and associations were prohibited, and of course no movies. Every moment must be valued and rightly employed (a good thing if not carried to extremes). It was really tyranny as I look back on it, although I tend to be an incurable optomist. (I couldn't afford to become depressed because depression is a sin.) So many minor things were a sin---and one sin, unconfessed and unforsaken, could keep someone out of heaven. And we were responsible, not only for our own sins, but for those sins we might have corrected in the lives of others. What a guilt trip that was! It was not even innocent to eat ice cream occasionally. And of course the cookies were sinful if they had baking soda, or sugar or white flour in them. I give this as an example, because those who take Ellen White and the Investigative Judgment casually do not even begin to know what those who take her seriously are encountering in their daily lives. And part of the requirement was to read the Testimonies again and again. It is really hard to do that without becoming critical, negative, and judgmental of others.
There are seven generations of Adventists in our family. I am blessed to have been freed from the tyranny of Adventism, but I am also blessed to have retained very much of value from my heritage. I certainly have not thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I learned to love Jesus in the Adventist church, and I thank Him for the way that He has led me.
I am still grieved when I see families who try to please God by regulating their lives by a close adherence to the "Spirit of Prophecy". Many have been misled by believing that her every word is a ray of light from the throne of God. I so much appreciate those who are attempting to undo the heavy burdens...break every yoke...loose the bands, and let the oppressed go free.
Mike MacLennan: Jan Paulsen Letter, 2000! You must have a memory akin to one Des Ford! The letter was slipped under the door of his hotel room at a session meeting. So there were no minders in the way. But no response! Silence evaporates a problem except on this blog, it appears. My father Dave and Uncles Norman and Walter were very conservative and loyal missionaries to the point of no fish on the table when they were jumping everywhere in the water. But their legacy is a continuing yield for the gospel of trawler-net proportions. Thanks for the enquiry.
Aagae
You make me feel heard. Thank you!
Aubyn
I take your point. Thanks for making it!
cybercat
You write:
"What a guilt trip that was! It was not even innocent to eat ice cream occasionally. And of course the cookies were sinful if they had baking soda, or sugar or white flour in them. I give this as an example, because those who take Ellen White and the Investigative Judgment casually do not even begin to know what those who take her seriously are encountering in their daily lives."
My responses to paragraphs like this are very mixed. On the one hand, I am grieved at the thought that any young person experienced such oppression. On the other, I wonder where on earth it came from!
Although I was reared in a very conservative Adventist minister's home, I never experienced anything of the sort. I know precisely how my father would have responded to such harmful teachings: "That's p-- s---." And I would have easily agreed!
Tim
Thank you for your background material. It is very instructive
Many thanks to everyone!
Dave
Dave, you wonder where the ideas came from about feeling guilty for eating ice cream. These ideas came from Counsels on Diet and Food by Ellen G. White. There are statements about not using dairy products. There are statements about not mixing milk and sugar. There are statements about not eating foods too hot or too cold. There are statements that say that breaking the laws of health is as serious as breaking the Ten Commandments (Decalogue). And if breaking the laws of health is a sin, it must be repented of and forsaken. And she claims that what she wrote came directly from God. The church still maintains that she is an "authoritative" source of truth.
Also I was taught that we must perfect our characters to the place where we stop sinning altogether because we must stand in the sight of a Holy God without a Mediator in the end time. (This is unbiblical because Jesus said He will never leave us or forsake us and that He will be with us to the end.)
This was the indoctrination that I grew up with. Seems that each generation of our Adventist family either dropped out of the church or took it to a new level. Either you believed it and tried to perfect it, or decided, "I can't live like that" and risked going to hell. Fortunately I was able to study my way out of it and retain what was Biblical and keep my joy and peace in the Lord, but it was a difficult journey because my roots were so deep.
Yesterday I read the biography of Doctor Ford that "Adventist Today" just published. I was surprised by both its tone and its substance. Buy it and judge for yourselves! Many thanks!
Dave
Dave,
Out in the conservative Midwest where children were taught not to question authority and that people in California were borderline Adventists (especially the women with "blue hair"), it didn't matter. We were strictly brought up by Counsels on Diets and Foods and there wasn't an option to think or speak for oneself. "Training" a child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord meant deep indoctrination, including that we had to perfect our characters to stand alone during the time of trouble without a mediator. The Investigative Judgement was a centerpiece of the Midwestern Adventism I was taught. "Meat eaters will not be translated," was another principle equal to any other in the Bible.
While you may have grown up in a home that didn't emphasize these things, many, many, many were, especially in academies whose sole purpose of existence was to perpetuate these principles from EGW into the next generations.
You seem to be amazed. Many of us are still untangling these principles of "training" from Sister White. How many times did I hear in my youth, "Sister White says . . ." ???
PLM
You are right! I am amazed!!
I just deleted a long post in which I inadvertently ended up blaming the victims of this excess. I hope I got it off this thread before anyone read it!
I sometimes heard such crazy and cruel things when I was young too, but I didn't take them very seriously. "Let it be like water off a duck's back," my father often said. So I did.
There is much in the writings of EGW that have blessed me beyond measure, especially in times of great sorrow and loss. So it hurts me to think that anyone gets stuck on what she sometimes said about cookies and such trivialities.
Let's just take one more example. There isn't a person alive today who knows precisely what EGW meant when she wrote about "standing before God without a mediator." Let's nail that down as firmly as possible before we say anything else.
But there is one thing we do know and this is that for us it cannot mean that God's moral character will change, such that one minute before the ringing of the bell God will be lavishly loving and one minute afterward God won't be.
I can't imagine that EGW believed anything close to that. But even IF she did, we shouldn't. We don't have to follow her if she gets off course.
We have no moral right to let people opppress us by turning off our minds. Don't we learn that from her too?
Guess what? I'm getting started all over again! But I don't have time to delete this post and write another one. So I'm going to stop.
Here's the bottom line: "God's steadfast love endures forever."
Thank you!
Dave
allenroyboy,
Do you realize the implication of what you stated on 30 August 2008 at 1:32?
Do you really want all Adventists who do not believe the church's version of the Investigative Judgment to leave the church? Did you ever consider that if that were to happen most Adventist scholars would be gone, and a huge number of the membership as well?
What did Jesus say about pulling the weeds before the wheat is ripe? Do you really believe that Jesus waited 1844 years before presenting the merits of his shed blood in the presence of God the Father? Do you believe that we must read the book of Hebrews through the writings of Ellen White? Did not she tell us to study the Bible? Do you think that Ellen White was infallible? She claimed that only God was infallible. Can you accept this?
Did she not tell us that if her Testimonies did not agree with the Bible, that we should reject them? Do you think that "Thus says the Lord," should be replaced with a "Thus said Ellen White"? Have you read the book "Counsel to Writers and Editors" where Mrs. White tells us that we need to study the Bible to discover new light and that "age will not make error into truth"?
Did you read the book of Hebrews with an open mind recently? It says that when Jesus died, the veil of the Temple was ripped apart, and we now have direct access to the presence of God. This means that there is no longer a separation between the Holy and the Most Holy place. It also means that when Jesus sat on the right hand of God the Father, he was sitting in the Most Holy Place. This took place following his ascension to heaven, not in 1844.
I believe that Ellen White was God's instrument in building his church, but when there is a conflict between her writings and the Bible, Scripture should have the supremacy. I do not believe in the church's version of the Investigative Judgment, and I am not planning to leave the church!
Aage,
I read your timely comments dated 30 August 2008 at 4:11 with great interest, and I agree that common sense should prevail in our attempt at understanding Daniel 8 correctly. You could not be more right when you stated that the 2300 days could not start before Alexander the Great came into existence. The vision starts with the he-goat's encounter with the ram. This evidently refers to the Battle of Granicus in 334 B.C. in which Alexander defeated the forces of Medo Persia.
If you use this date as the starting point for the prophecy, and allow for the lack of a zero date between B.C. and A.D., you arrive at the year 1967 A.D. Did anything of significance take place for Daniel's race then? The Six Day War between Israel and the Arabs. It is as simple as that! the mystery is solved. This was predicted by John Newton, the brother of Isaac Newton three centuries ago.
Dr. Ford believes that he can jettison the IJ and maintain that EGW had the Gift of prophecy. He asks us to believe that EGW began to have misgivings about the IJ because she apparently wrote less about the IJ than she did in her earlier years. He proposes that EGW's earlier statements about the IJ were not based upon revelations but the coercive influence of those around her. I would love for someone to defend this position. Are there scholors who support this idea?
Daniel 12:1 "¶And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
Am I to believe that the events described in Daniel 12 took place during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes?
It will never happen but should:
1. Destroy every compilation of EGW's writings including the Testimonies.
2. Publish the Conflict of the Ages Series with proper attributions: footnotes and references.
3. Publish a straight exigesis of both Dan 8: 14 and Rev. 14: 6-12
4. Rewrite the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of SDA Church with a rercognition of EGW as a founder and devoted writer of Christian history and mores.
5. Write and publish an apology to six-seven generations of the confused and abused.
6. Agressively seek open fellowship with Christian communities everywhere. Tom
7. Proclaim the Gospel into all the world in this generation! Tom
Oh, what a sad, confused and troubled legacy has been left in the wake of EGW! True, the experiences are quite different because of the home and school environment, but for the serious child, truly believing in what she was told by her parents, teachers and church, this doctrine caused nightmares, nervous breakdowns, and eventually discarding everything about the SDA church.
Who can blame them? If that had also been your
experience, please understand that religion is always a subjective belief and to trust your elders as being honest and teaching you in the right way, where do you turn for any opposing ideas?
Look around: see how many of your former classmates, church members, and even denominational employees have either quietly or vocally, left the church never to darken the doors again. Where is the sensitivity for those who have suffered years of spiritual abuse and emotional trauma inflicted by such a diabolical dogma that "any unconfessed sin could send you to Hell if your name came up at ANYTIME! That's a devilish doctrine any way you slice it. And not to recognize that it was widely taught is to admit to blindness.
Dave,
I think the old adage applies, "Until you walk a mile in another person's shoes..."
You normally are very positive and empathetic. However, over this issue of EGW abuse, your own personal experience and upbringing seems to leave you unable to understand the pain and anguish many of us have gone through. Many who conscientiously tried to live by every ray of light we thought was coming from God...because that is what we were taught, and how we were indoctrinated.
Any wonder the anger, disillusonment and backlash when a more nuanced picture begins to emerge... a picture that we found was largely suppressed for years by the institutional organ?
Thanks...
Frank
The entire Glacier View Affair is more than proof enough that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a cult. It can not stand without the dogma of EGW. Because it attempts to wrap itself in a veneer of reformational theology does nothing to modify the core or to make it truth.
The longer the Church holds to the "Spirit of Prophecy" as definitive, the harder with be the backlash and the greater the fall. Why can't the Church cry out "Free at last, Free at Last, thank God Almighty, Free at last?" Cleansed of its dogma, it would have the clearest most clarion call to the Gospel of any church body now in existance. Tom
Frank
Thank you for your admonition and I am taking it to heart. I do not want to leave the impression that I had an entirely carefree childhood or that I was spiritually careless. I wasn't.
But there are limits, Frank. And telling a youngster that he or she can't have a bowl of ice cream or a cookie is going way too far. Way, way too far.
I really don't think this was typical for SDAism around the world at the time. I really don't. But perhaps I'm wrong.
In any case, I shall try to be more understanding. Thanks for the encouragement!
Dave
I am hoping more people like you and like my friend and colleague Julius Nam will draw on your cross-cultural knowledge and experience to give better substance and texture to bare abstract insights like the one I tried to articulate.
Posted by: G. Schneider (not verified) | 01 September 2008 at 4:07
A Jesuit education in my country seems more inclined to critique all human social traditions at the same time that it aims to foster appreciation of the local culture. I'm betting on Zane, who is currently pursuing his doctorate in a Catholic university, to fill the role Dr Schneider envisions for those with a transcultural perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ateneo_de_manila_university
I first met Dr Ford in 1987, on the first Sunday before Holy Week in Manila. I found him sitting alone in the dining room of our Adventist hospital which was situated just across the street from the union conference/mission headquarter. The lady doctor who asked me to approach Des must have thought I had nothing more to lose being seen speaking to him. Des was on his way to the southern island of Mindanao, having been invited to a retreat with Adventist students who were enrolled in a public/state university. I don't know if he knew in advance he was to spend several days in a predominantly Muslim section of the country. Besides, while martial law had only been lifted for about a year, the ubiquitous presence of heavily armed government agents in uniform was still very evident. Des preached and taught the students who gathered in a large house just across the street from the Adventist hospital in the city. I was told that their invited speaker, Dr Ford, was forbidden from entering the hospital premises; nevertheless, the food that students brought from the hospital dining room was shared with their honored guest. I met Dr Ford again when he returned on Friday with a Filipino traveling companion. I invited them to join me in spending the night and to worship the next day on our mission college and the Asia Adventist Theological Seminary (former Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Far East) campus. After church, the seminary dean/president, Dr Vhymeister, and his wife very kindly invited us for a meal in their home together with two members of his faculty. In the afternoon, Dr Ford spoke, followed with Q & A, to the graduate and seminary students who filled the living room of the home where we were staying.
"I really don't think this was typical for SDAism around the world at the time. I really don't."
David, nevertheless, such negative and heavily reinforced positions WERE taught, as many can testify. Those sorts of negative teachings, "directly from God" are far more influential than the rather lax attitude that you, and others may have experienced growing up.
To a child, things that are overlooked are not strong reminders; whereas those that are verbally and practically enforced are not easily forgotten, as some of us are still keenly aware.
Childhood influences and the scars are never permanently erased.
Sorry!
Hi Dave,
I think you and I both are feeling the heat of our “day jobs,” and feeling that doing blog posts is a bit like Br’er Rabbit fighting Tar Baby. Nevertheless, here I go, I hope for the last time.
I think Aubyn has said some of what I wanted to say about the SDA theological “left” and its failure, with important exceptions, to act and speak in the crisis of Glacier View. My take on the failure narrative you want me to rethink is that Des Ford and his PUC colleagues deserved the wholesale solidarity and support of their academic colleagues on the principle that the church needs the open theological debate of many voices, and the act of scapegoating Des et. al. was an act of oppression and disrespect of what teachers are supposed to do in the church. Instead we got, and clearly still have right there in your recent post (02 September 2008 at 8:34) in your points 4, 5, and 6, a blame-the-victims narrative that rationalizes the inaction.
About point 4, The AAF leaders in Angwin were, I think in retrospect, seeing their invitation to Des mostly through one side of your two-sided (and logically incoherent) rationale of why they ought to have let the IJ alone, but deduced a different conclusion: they thought it enough of a dead letter that an academic “post-mortem” led by one of the more charismatic theologians on campus would be a legitimate and stimulating topic to a significant, but not huge, segment of the campus community. They had to change the scheduled venue for the address twice in order to accommodate the crowds they were not expecting. Perfectionism, a far broader and more ramified issue than the IJ, was not something the AAF was addressing, and the logical inextricability that many now see between the two was not obvious then. Only with the 20/20 vision of hindsight does your “don’t fight two big issues at once” maxim make sense.
About point 5, lacking in maturity and academic preparation? I am listing the principals in my mind: All of them were older than me, longer married, and responsible for children while Candy and I were still childless. Why should that matter? Well, I don’t know exactly; I’m grasping for what maturity might have meant in the context of those moments. One of the AAF co-chairs was nearly old enough to be my father, was a veteran of the pastorate and of youth directors work at the local conference level and also a veteran of middle school classrooms. He also had Ph. D. in Experimental Psychology from Emory University. Maybe you are thinking of the other co-chair, a 30-something veteran of the pastorate and of the high school classroom, but having only a seminary M.Div, ordination, and a Ph.D. program of study in Church History at GTU in Berkeley. Others who were caught up in the songs incident which you censure in your point 6 include a 30-something father of two with a Ph.D. in History from the University of Chicago and another 30-something father of two with a Th.D. specializing in Old Testament from the seminary. On what basis ought someone at PUC have concluded that these guys were immature and unqualified? Yes, it is true that the younger co-chair of the local AAF was the most charismatic classroom teacher on campus who was constantly having to turn students away from his overfull classes and that the creative wit and humor that attracted most people sometimes irritated and offended others. This is evidence he should have been doing something other than teaching at PUC? Your judgment against the maturity and preparation of these people is, I submit, another after-the-fact rationalization of the trouble they experienced over the Glacier View issues.
About point 6, this is a remarkably vivid and concrete way to characterize the behavior and attitudes of people who were not in LLU’s anatomy labs but hundreds of miles away from where you lived. I wonder on what direct empirical experience your descriptions could be based? A couple items in your characterization deserve special attention.
First, the songs. Please recall that the songs happened AFTER Glacier View and in the midst of a campus milieu of threat, intimidation, and demand that the principals show contrition for their actions and take steps to separate themselves from all taint of Desmond Ford. My colleagues and I felt then and, so far as I know, believe today, that submitting to these demands, allowing these perceptions and judgments to get inside our heads, would have been wrong, a threat to our own integrity and a betrayal of a colleague unjustly defrocked and disgraced. The songs were written as an engine of resistance to these demands. Indeed, they were composed in the car on a trip from Angwin to Auburn, where Des and Gill and another defrocked preacher were staying, a trip taken in refusal to be complicit with the demand to abandon and isolate our colleague. The songs were also an effort in the moment to lift everyone’s spirits, especially those of Des, et. al. In this they succeeded, by the accounts I heard. I should add that I was invited be in that car on the way to Auburn and declined only because of prior family plans. A slight change in timing, and you would have had a much harder time exempting me from your condescending judgment against the maturity of my colleagues.
Now, of course, I think everyone might now agree that it was a mistake in judgment to commit those lyrics to writing or to share them with anyone else. Indeed, sharing them not in writing but simply in a private performance in his home was how the Andrews Th.D. got implicated in the songs incident. He had the misfortune of having a zealous neighbor (a man who has changed much for the better since then) who heard the singing and hung around outside until he could see who left the house. This scandalized neighbor, who later said he felt he had witnessed something akin to Satanic worship, went to administration to complain about his neighbor and the visiting singers. Only an act of firm solidarity on the part of many colleagues saved one man, the charismatic classroom teacher, from being banished from campus summarily by a panicked administration. This teacher was later one of the walking wounded who stepped into Adventist health care, including the pay scale that has allowed him the best revenge--living well. Perhaps you are thinking good riddance?
I go into this incident because it seems to me that your pattern of judgment implies that all fault for sorry episodes like this lies with people like the singers, and none with people like the scandalized neighbor. I think, instead, that PUC was surrounded by a lot of people like this neighbor, people made angry and humorless by the kinds of legalistic and perfectionist terror so many others have testified to in these blog posts. I think, like Aubyn, that if a young David Larsen had made fun of the Sanctuary Doctrine in the manner you do under your second #3 (you have 2 of them) in your recent post, you would have run afoul of these people too.
Finally, about tape recordings. You apparently do not understand that the objection to tape recordings of class discussions and lectures in those days had to do with what human beings, not God, would do with them. We had a well-founded fear that such recordings would be sent off to Adventist Review editors and to members of the Orwellian-named “Friends of PUC,” to be transcribed and picked apart into out-of-context compilations of hostile intent in order to inflame yet more angry, humorless people against us. A good many such recordings were done in secret, furthermore, in hopes of catching one or the other of us in unguarded moments saying things that would be easy to distort.
OK, enough and more than enough, despite the fact that I can think of more to say. I truly hope with you that our exchange is helpful to other readers. Again, let everyone be convinced in the integrity of their own mind.
Grace and Peace,
Greg
Dave, I did not read your post before you withdrew it. It probably would not have seriously disturbed me if I had read it, at least for myself. Having not read it, I don't know if it would have been enlightening or destructive to others.
I would like to make the point that people who believe totally in Ellen White like I did are not particularly stupid, just blind. I will admit that I was blind, but you've got to realize that I didn't have a computer or the internet back then. I had the intelligence, but not the information I needed to deal with Ellen White and Investigative Judgment issues. Yes, I had a Bible, but some of the deceptions were very subtle. I was forming conclusions based on the information I had. The people that I and my family associated with did not question Ellen White, but earnestly strove to come into line with what we thought was God's will for our lives.
As regards my intelligence, I was salutatorian of my 100-member class at Monterey Bay Academy. I did not avoid the most difficult science classes on campus. I was working 24 hours a week and taking music in addition. I went to Pacific Union College and Loma Linda University with a 4-year state scholarship and worked enough to pay all my other bills. I took a double major, one of which was religion. Even my upper division Spirit of Prophecy class from Dr. Leslie Harding did not discuss any problematic aspects of Ellen White's life or writings. I took Daniel and Revelation from Eric B. Syme, and some classes from Robert Olson and others. The entire theology department supported Ellen White as far as I knew. I liked to sit in Dr. Quimby's Sabbath School class. It was one big happy family who seemed to be in one accord. Later I was a student of Jack Provonsha, Maxwell and others at Loma Linda along with my career studies. So why would I question Ellen White??? I didn't have the tools, the desire, or the inclination to investigate something I so strongly believed in. My mind was set on preparing myself to be a part of the great gospel commission. I had concerns at times, especially after graduating from college that the church was in "apostasy" because many of the leaders and members didn't follow the Ellen White "blueprint".
At least I had the tenacity and intelligence to continue to probe these issues until I was able to escape their tyranny without carrying a load of guilt. So many "victims" leave the SDA church and carry a huge load of guilt because they haven't disproved it in their minds. They somehow know the Sabbath is of value, and the Investigative Judgment and Ellen White restrictions must somehow be sacred by association. I studied my way out of the Adventist church. I would love to again be a part of my beloved church if the reforms listed by Tom Zwemer | 03 September 2008 at 8:51 were instituted. But then, it wouldn't be the SDA church. It would just be an ordinary Sabbath-keeping church. The reason I left the SDA church was because I felt that I could not keep my baptismal vow to support it with my tithe and my influence. I couldn't keep silent, and I didn't think it was fair to be divisive. I wanted the freedom to study and speak out, and I felt that the environment of the small church that I was in was too restrictive. I might not have felt this way in a more scholarly and accepting atmosphere.
Dave, I don't need your approval. That is not why I am writing this. I would hope though, that you would deal with others like me with compassion and a deeper understanding of where we come from.
To Mike M. and anyone else who wants to offer an answer:
What is the difference between the biblical "pre-Advent judgment" and the so-called unbiblical SDA doc. of "investigative judgment"??
I wait a reply.
If you prefer, you may use my email:
morninglightwpep@yahoo.com
"I studied my way out of the Adventist church."
That was the exact reason I also left. Comparing the Bible with what were the 27 (at that time) Fundamental Beliefs, there were (IMO) enormous difficulties with the proof-texting and assumptions made.
"What is the difference between the biblical "pre-Advent judgment" and the so-called unbiblical SDA doc. of "investigative judgment"??"
Barry, those are different terms meaning the same things. If not, please explain why not. SDAs have been quite proficient in coining their own jargon which has meanings only to the "select."
Did It ever occur to anyone, that the walking wounded were the
well schooled, sensitive, deeply committed, highly ethical, and pro-active members of the SDA Church prior to Walter, Ron, Don, Fred, Des, Raymond, and a host of bloggers on this thread. It should be obvious that there is no there, there!
The time has come, and is long past, when we as Christians should declare with one voice that Christ is Lord and His work in the Covenant of Redemption was completed at the moment He cried: "It is Finished". If His work was finished so was Satan--his kingdom fell. The Book of Revelation says that in technicolor. There is no private understanding. Jesus Reigns! Amen. Tom
Dr Schneider, I don't think many people today resent the fact that people resorted to humour to survive the truly Kafakaesque situation they found themselves in at the beginning of the 1980s. Somehow I've never heard of those songs but I'm sure I would have found relief in them.
What contributed to making the situation so bizarre, was the fact that theological analysis was met, not by exegesis and counter arguments, but by heavy-handed administrative action.
I say "analysis" because nobody that I knew of who were employed by the church crusaded against the investigative judgment. Ford didn't do it. Smuts didn't do it. Bob Brinsmead was the only one who took these issues directly to the people, and when Ford addressed the issue at the request of the AAF, it was because of the heat generated by Brinsmead's seminars and publications.
It's a myth that theologians and pastors within the church crusaded against 1844. After Ford was defrocked, a few people stood up and spoke their mind on their way out of the church, but that was it. If I remember correctly.
Few hierarchs attempted to defend the investigative judgment, and when they did, it did at times border on the ridiculous. For instance, have a look at what the editor of the Adventist Review wrote on March 19, 1981 to explain why God had needed such a long time--137 years and running--to investigate those who had applied for a future with God (brings to mind the vetting of vice-presidential candidates):
"Moreover, God is eminently just and fair, and He must make this clear to every rational creature everywhere before He terminates Satan and his followers. To do this requires time--how much time we do not know. We do know that careful examination of evidence by human beings requires much time. (The recent trial of Jean Harris for killing Dr. Herman Tarnowever lasted about three months before the case went to the jury.) And, since angels are not vastly superior to human beings (Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:7), perhaps they need considerable time to do their assigned tasks in the judgment. (And after they have done their work is it possible that there are review boards or "superior courts" in heaven to make sure that each case has been dealt with fairly?)"
It was enough to make you break out in song.
Cyberkat
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. I am certainly sorry you were made to suffer the excesses of others. I am trying to understand your perspective better since I would have to discribe my life experiences are very much like Dave's. Could I ask you a few questions about it?
In the first part of your last post you gave us a glimpse of your situation and mindset in your early life.
Would you discribe your change of mindset as gradual or abrupt? I am percieving the change as more abrupt.
I only ask as you seem to discribe things in a favorable or may be nostagic light of your early years, like where you say,
"(We) earnestly strove to come into line with what we thought was God's will for our lives.
I liked to sit in Dr. Quimby's Sabbath School class.
It was one big happy family who seemed to be in one accord."
Then later your discriptions change.
"At least I had the tenacity and intelligence to continue to probe these issues until I was able to escape their tyranny without carrying a load of guilt.
So many "victims" leave the SDA church and carry a huge load of guilt..."
Was the change abrupt? It doesnt sound like you considered your self a "victim" or under "tyranny" at the time.
What part of of your post SDA (I dont know what to discribe it as sorry) feelings have to do with the specific theological issues and what part comes from perhaps a sense of a later realization that someone or some group was taking advantage of your earnestness?
Sorry I dont always have the way with words that KM and some of the others here have.
To Mike M. and anyone else who wants to offer an answer: What is the difference between the biblical "pre-Advent judgment" and the so-called unbiblical SDA doc. of "investigative judgment"??
Posted by: Barry Kimbrough (not verified) | 03 September 2008 at 2:42
Hi Barry, It has been observed that since Des Ford's 1979 forum, church teachers and pastors have used the term "pre-advent judgment." Pre-advent is more specific to the idea that the judgment is before the advent. Perhaps this is the unique contribution Adventism has made outside the church of a judgment preceding the second coming of Christ.
I am confident Barry that with Jesus as our representative and judge we'll make it. Jesus said that we will be judged by the way that we treat other people: people who are in prison, the poor and the homeless. Some very rich people may feel like committing suicide - like that millionaire in England who just shot his wife and daughter and burned their mansion down. There is such a need everywhere.
A sense of His goodness to us motivates us to feel compassion for others. It flows out of those who have confidence that Jesus accepts them based on the depth of His mercy.
Blessings,
Mike
A Thought Barry,
Since Adventism believes in a "pre-millennial"return of Christ the eschatology perhaps drives the time of judgment.
Amillennialist have everything occuring at the second coming.
If a heavenly millenium is the case there must be a pronoucement of who will be saved at Christ's appearing...thus a pre-advent judgment but it can be a momentary event.
IJ on the otherhand is an extended "evaluation" beginning in 1844 to the present and not a momentary declaration as all that is needed by the Godhead. It is also tied into Christ not entering the most holy until 1844.
The pre-advent judgment is also a vindication of the righteous from those that oppress them whereas the IJ seems to focus more on the sins of the "professors" than the "oppressors."
regards,
pat
Barry--
You asked, "What is the difference between the biblical 'pre-Advent judgment' and the so-called unbiblical SDA doc. of "investigative judgment'??"
I appreciate your asking that question. There is so much I have forgotten that I had to pull out my files and look!
I am going to present some _original sources_ below to help answer that question.
The first reference I can find for the change to a pre-advent judgment was in the consensus document that was written at Glacier View, August 10-15, 1980. (Ministry, 10/4/80, p. 18): "Thus our study reinforces our belief that we have indeed come to the time of the pre-Advent judgment, which historically we have termed the "investigative judgment." (Ministry, p. 18)
Ford's antagonist, Erwin Gane, also used the term in a Pacific Union Recorder article on 9/29/80. Gane's appeal, interestingly, as about preparing for a judgment upon believers: "Are you enjoying a daily new-birth experience so that Jesus can finally vindicate you before the books of record are closed?"
In December, 1981, Ministry presented an article by Edward Heppenstall titled, "The Pre-Advent Judgment." Heppenstall had used this term in his 1972 book, "Our High Priest." However the Ministry article represents a clear statement in the heat of the post-Glacier View.
He says, "We have usually taught that its scope is defined by the words 'the investigative judgment,' and is limited to the saints. I suggest that we have so emphasized this one eschatological aspect that we have failed to see the wider scope. ...Thus when [the Adventist pioneers] made their appeal to the sanctuary in heaven, where Christ sat at the right hand of the Father, their chief concern was their standing before the judgment seat of God, and for them the scope of the judgment was limited to the saints. But now, when we carefully examine chapters 7 and 8 of Daniel, the judgment is seen to have a wider scope.
"First, the pre-advent judgment is _in favor_ (emphasis Heppenstall's) of the saints. ...The pre-advent judgment will reverse the judgment against them by the antichrist and his earthly agents."
Heppenstall's appeal at the end is not about a daily new birth as Gane's is, but about an objective work of Christ on our behalf.
If someone has original documents that describe why the change was made I'd love to know about them. My _assumption_ is that it represented a change in Adventist thinking from a fear-based judgment as our pioneers held, based on perfect sanctification, to an assurance-based judgment upon the enemies of God's elect, based on the cross.
-- Tim
Aage that quote from the Review is priceless. I could almost (of course if it weren't the Review) believe it is satire.
To Mike, Tim, Elaine, Pat --
Thanks very much for taking time to give an answer to my question.
I think that three of you were trying to say that the new view (pre-Advent) is a focus on what Jesus has done for us, while the old view (investigative)is a focus on what we do for Jesus.
This has been a helpful discussion. I will offer my own view: It seems odd to me that we do a lot of investigating every day, even suggesting that to neglect it is foolish, in most areas of life; but when it comes to God letting people into heaven, we don't like the idea of Him investigating us.
What is dating but an investigation? What is a job interview but an investigation? We don't call that legalism. But in religion we somehow don't want to think that God might look to see if we are fit for heaven. To me it makes perfect sense that God would investigate me before allowing me into a His kingdom, and it makes no sense to think that He would refuse to do so.
Greg
Thanks for sharing your impressions and reflections about what was going on at PUC at the time. As I previously said, you were there and I wasn't so in these matters [but not necessarily in all others!] I defer to you.
If you have not done so already, I encourage you to spell out in writing the whole story as you saw it unfold. This would be a valuable contribution.
I don't think of myself as having made fun of the Sanctuary and IJ doctrines in the analogy I used with Aubyn. My point is as serious as any can be and this that the IJ and perfectionism debates were based on premises that do not commend themselves. I've had no difficulty being understood on this issue.
Cyberkat
Please forgive me for leaving the impression that I doubted your intelligence. Nothing of the sort crossed my mind.
It does seem to me that in certain bygone chapters of their lives some people in this discussion might have been unduly deferential to authority. But that has nothing to do with their intelligence. Nothing at all.
Tim
Your command of the history of these discussions impresses me! Please let us keep benefiting from your files!
Everyone
I'm dropping out of this discussion for a while, not because I am upset but because I am going on a trip and leaving my computer behind in order to get some rest.
Many thanks and all the best!
Dave
My Dear, All of You,
August 1948, Jamestown, ND. The "Patriarchs and Prophets", retired German speaking farmers, having migrated from Germany to Russia to USA, each Tuesday met at my grandfathers livingroom - he then was ministering the German SDA churches in ND - to study the weekly SS. On the very Tuesday some turmoil arose, them not at all corresponding to the SS text, the Book of Hebrews was the very weeks issue : There "was" and there "has"; they out of their Bibles read that Jesus already had entered the Most Holy the time Herbrews was written. (Unfortunately I do not remember my beloved grandfathers position.)
I do not fit into the Holiness scheme, maybe - as one minister, discussing the "Sanctuary" matter, decades later told me - I lack in my relation to Christ, but since August 1948 the Book of Hebrews somehow fascinates me - continuously.
In the Sixties an elderly gentleman of our local church, lifelong a craftsman, no white collar job, 50 to 70 hours the week busy in his workshop, had spent countless nights during many years on scrutinizing the matter : He finally relied on John 5 : 24 and John 3 : 36 on the matter of IJ, on Hebrews, on the matter of "Sanctuary" - and the local minister, asked for a dialogue on both topics by the local church elder, refused to come - because he was not informed enough to defend his, i.e. the official SDA teaching on these; yet the same minister two decades later partook on the
ostracism on Desmond Ford in Glacier View.
Mabe eight years ago I did not want to be in charge of the SS - class on a Sabbath, not to cause untimely disturbances, but my church did not find any other SS - teacher for this day. So we studied Heb 4 : 16 , 6 : 19, 20, chapter 9 and the crucial texts in 10 : 19 - 22. One member, just comming from one of our colleges with a degree in Economics, asked : "And how ist this about Dan 8 : 14 ?" - Well, we were studying the Book of Hebrews.
Just to show that the theological Desmond Ford issue is not only something theologians are engaged.
Greetings GSS
An investigative judgment and a pre-advent judgment that are tied to 1844 and thereafter are unbiblical. Here's why:
2 Timothy 2:19 (New King James Version)
'Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,”...
John 5:24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life."
John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
jashmead
I am trying to figure out the meaning of your comments dated on 03 September 2008 at 7:17:
“Daniel 12:1 ‘¶And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.’ Am I to believe that the events described in Daniel 12 took place during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes?”
Jashmead: Do you realize that the Daniel 8 vision of Alexander the Great is removed from Daniel 12 by four chapters and thousands of years? Did someone claim that all the material found in chapters 8 through 12 deal with the activity of Antiochus Epiphanes?
Tom,
You included the following reforms for the Adventist church on 03 September 2008 at 7:51, and suggested that they will never take place:
“1. Destroy every compilation of EGW's writings including the Testimonies.
2. Publish the Conflict of the Ages Series with proper attributions: footnotes and references.
3. Publish a straight exegesis of both Dan 8: 14 and Rev. 14: 6-12
4. Rewrite the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of SDA Church with a recognition of EGW as a founder and devoted writer of Christian history and mores.”
I agree with you: It will never happen! It would be akin to rewriting the Bible. Then, on another posting dated 03 September 2008 at 9:14 you included the following comment:
“The entire Glacier View Affair is more than proof enough that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a cult.”
I just checked my English dictionary. The original meaning of the term “cult” is worship. Taken in this sense of the word, you have paid a compliment to the Adventist church!
P.S.: I can't resist saying one or two more things before we rush to the airport:
1. Some may wonder what I mean when I say that from my point of view these debates took place on premises that do not commend themselves.
I sketched this at the "Questions on Doctrine" conference at Andrews University last fall. Audio and written recordings of my presentation and all the other ones are available at www.qod.au.edu.
There was some question about whether the QOD presentations should be recorded on tape. My private vote to Julius Nam was "yes" because (a) God hears everything we say anyway and (b) I think that audio recordings protect everyone. So far, so good!
2. Among other things, my presentation asks if we would disqualify Jesus as our Lord and Savior if we discovered that sometimes he had erotic dreams and nocturnal emissions.
I wasn't joking and no one thought I was. Rather, I was trying to explore the degree to which either of the two primary views of the human nature of Jesus in our denomination can deal with issues like this one.
3. Because so many people wonder and ask, Ron Knott, who knew and respected my Dad, and disagreed with him at times, asked me to say a few words at the QOD conference about what it was like to grow up in the home of Ralph and Jeanne Larson.
So I took a few minutes away from my paper to tell the conferees about the three and only three times in my life my father ever spanked me. Everyone agreed that I deserved each one, as I did! This is on the tape, but not the paper.
4. When I was an earliteen at what is now called Pleasant Hill Adventist Academy, or something like that, just east of Oakland, California, I intentionally struck a bully in the face as hard as I could.
The school [rightly?] suspended me because I burst several blood vessels in one of his eyes.
After he learned about what I had done and that I would have some extra time on my hands, my father drew me aside and asked, with absolutely no show of emotion, "Son, how would like to spend a few days helping me in the Camino [California] evangelistic campaign?" "Sure!" I responded. That was the very last thing he ever said about the incident.
4. Why am I going writing all this? Because I'm trying to make the point that, although I grew up in a very conservative SDA home, and although my father and I would eventually have some stressful theological tugs-of-war, which strained but never snapped the cords that bound us, he did not suffer from a obsessive/cumpulsive disorder. I would say the same of virtually all of his theological colleagues.
5. I think, although I could be wrong about this, that I saw more of a tendency in that direction among those on the other side of the great theological divide.
6. How would any of us like it if one of our children kept saying that we will forgive him or her no matter what, as though trying to be self-convincing? I would hope that our children could take this as given and be free to move on to other things.
7. The lesson I am learning from my participation in these exchanges is that we really do have very different backgrounds and that these very different backgrounds really do color the way we see things.
8. Did anyone out there have a sufficiently happy SDA childhood? Not perfect, of course. But close enough?
9. Just for the record, we aren't leaving Loma Linda this weekend because Doctor Ford will be speaking at the church my father, who had decidely different views, once pastored. This trip was planned a long time ago!
10. I am genuinely grateful for these exchanges because I am learnng so much and making such good friends!
Off to LAX!
Dave
What strikes me further about this discussion is the danger in absolute statements. Some doubt that there is a judgement at all for the righteous (Joselito above), some are for God being the one judged other the saints being judged the 'wicked' being judged with a variety of thoughts on the timing etc.
Once you come down strongly on any side then you are exposed to the weakness of each stance. Being strong about a subject can lead to the oppressive life or death scenario used to promulgate the IJ.
How can any one can be so sure in their outlook when as Paul says everying is viewed as if a poor reflection in a mirror?
Adrian
p.s. I could never understand the logic of being told my name was either about to come up or had already come up for judgement as was the case when I was young. What would this mean if it had, that all of my actions/choices from then on were meaningless....
"To me it makes perfect sense that God would investigate me before allowing me into a His kingdom, and it makes no sense to think that He would refuse to do so."
Either God already knows everything about you, past and present, or he is not God. Claiming that he needs to "investigate" anyone is bringing him down to our level, and operates as a human. This is the anthropomorphizing of God
which occurs throughout the Bible--the only way that man could write would be describing him in the only language they understood. This overlooks even what they wrote that God said "I am what I am" and that we shouldn't make images of God--which is done each and every time we compare him in human terms.
Can't we let God decide and operate without our puny explanations which only demonstrate our total ignorance about him? Just as the writers of the Bible thousands of years ago, we also write as if we know his mind, future actions, and what he does. Such audacity!
Elaine
Do you mean He started His investigations on Oct. 22, 1844?
Do you mean that the Seventy down in Alexandria got it right in Dan 8: 14? and nowbody picked it up until a farmer walked through a corn field?
Do you mean that His investigations won't be over until he has a final perfect generation that will vindicate Him?
Do you mean that anyone who disagrees, has the mark of the beast on his forehead or on his hand?
Or do you mean that God keeps score on everyone--He knows who was born where, when, and how they lived, and what they believed?
Finally, does He know who is "safe" to save on the basis of the testimony of our Advocacy with the Father, Jesus Christ? Tom
Tom, to quote another well-known figure: God is the decider, not man. He is neither bound by time nor space. Let God be God!
Greg wrote:“I have little hope that they will see that my colleagues and I are as much the church as they, that it is our church as much as it is theirs, and that we are as much authorities as they in the determination of its needs and course of development.
The reflex assumption that academics must perpetually be kept under the thumbs of ecclesiastics is in marked contrast to a Mennonite denomination, for example, whose college president was a presenter one year in the late 1990s at a PUC faculty colloquy. He remarked that denominational leadership looked to the college faculty regularly for guidance in how to provide long-term leadership and direction for the entire denomination. He spoke so placidly and with such a sense of the obvious propriety of such a mutually respectful partnership between pastors and teachers, that he was unprepared for the audible gasps and undertone buzz that broke out around the room when he said this. We in the Adventist tradition seem incapable of imagining and implementing such a genuinely mutually respectful partnership between pastors and teachers.”
Posted by: G. Schneider (not verified) | 02 September 2008 at 10:02
Greg, You have hit the nail on the head. What happened to Des Ford at GV is a symptom. Here you have got to the cause.
What I would like to stimulate by this blog is what can we creatively do to achieve that “genuinely mutually respectful partnership between pastors and teachers” that you have so eloquently shared with us? (A play like Red Books, a conference to deal with these points using qualified people like yourself in Behavioral Science, a petition to the GC signed by 10,000 people, a creative protest at the next GC calling attention to this issue?)
All the very best Greg,
Mike
P.S. (I have a theory: At Glacier View Elder Neil Wilson intentionally stacked the group with many more administrators than scholars so that his pre-determined outcome would be a guarantee. So when the Consensus statement was done he thought that he had the document to fire Des Ford because of having more administrators than scholars. But when Des Ford informed them that he was happy with the Consensus statement, Wilson was shocked. He could not conceive that Des would agree with it. So to achieve his ends, he had to produce a document on which to fire him - namely the illegal 10-point critique not voted on by the General Assembly of delegates.)
Elaine
I have no intention in interfering with God. I do ask for His help from time to time. But I am still confused by your previous comment. Seems like the IJ doctrine is telling God how to run His business and you are agreeing, which is indeed out of character. Tom
Tom, the quote preceding my comments were copied to show the direct contradiction of my statement that followed where I wrote that God has no need for any "investigation" as he already knows everything about us and he will decide what he will decide.
The SDA doctrine of an 1844 judgment is, IMO, an abomination and blasphemes the idea of God, that he would need some sort of "investigating" into who are his children. If human parents know who their children are, is God less competent?
No, to repeat again, I have no problem distancing myself absolutely and entirely from the IJ that SDAs introduced to the church in an effort to "save face" for the disastrous decision to announce they held the "hidden clue" to Daniel's message: Something that all the church fathers for nearly 2,000 years had never seen or heard of! Preposterous!
Elaine
Thanks, I agree. Tom P.S. I missed your first part sorry I was so dull.
Several days ago, I posted a rather long comment...which has not been commented upon. It is heresy...I admit it. But it does clear some things up for me...while creating a new set of problems! Anyone wanna fight? Just kidding!
As an aside...has anyone seen 'Ring of Power'(in 31 parts) on YouTube? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUo_0QnbbB4 I don't endorse it, and I'm not promoting it. Viewer beware. Viewer discretion advised. It is heretical and upsetting...but it likewise cleared some things up for me...while creating a new set of problems.
I suspect that in a few years...many of us wounded, bitter victims of the over-use and mis-use of the writings of Ellen White...will re-approach her writings in our own time, and in our own way...and will find that, in principle and concept, that they make a lot more sense than we thought they did.
Tom,
It has occurred to me that there were/are walking wounded as you describe a long time before the 70s, Des Ford, et. al. These are stories we need told and recorded. I don't know you, but one Alice Holst, victim of an early 60s purge at PUC, is now, at 90+ years, the personification of wisdom and humor sitting each week in the Choir Room Sabbath School at PUC, and still playing the piano for the hymns we sing. I keep telling myself to sit down with her and get her story before it is too late. We need your story too. I hope there is some way you can get it recorded for us.
Tim,
With awe and admiration I thank-you for your posts here. They have contributed more in fewer words than everything I've said from the review until now.
Dave,
Clearly we are not finished with each other yet. Enjoy your break.
Aage (I hope the first name is OK? I'd be happy to dispense with the "Dr." honorific here),
Thank-you for your thoughtful underlining characterization of the the situation of those times. Kafkaesque indeed.
Mike M,
Thank-you for your affirmation of the "mutually respectful partnership" insight and for your eagerness to see something done to create what so far I've only decried the absence of. I got involved in Red Books in hopes of healing some breaches in our community, and in my own heart and mind. Maybe there further steps to accomplish more. I think your theory about Glacier View and Wilson's maneuvers is quite plausible.
Orthodoxymoron,
I am sorry no one has picked up on your long post. I admired your thoughtfulness and felt the weight of your arguments against the forensic substitutionary atonement model. I also appreciated the closing quote from Deepak Chopra, though I have reservations about him in other respects. I wonder if you have any acquaintance with the Emergent Church movement that is going on in certain parts of American Protestantism. They recently had a contest asking people to come up stories that provided alternativie metaphors/models of atonement, alternative to penal substitution, that is. There would be some more food for your very useful thought there.
Thanks to all for this remarkable conversation. I think I'm done with this thread, but expect to see you again elsewhere.
Greg Schneider
To those more versed in Daniel 8:14,
On 31 August 2008 at 7:49 I made reference to a unique interpretation of Daniel 8:14 originally advanced by John Newton, and more recently defended by Dick Koobs of Loma Linda. A young man responded by private communication arguing that I was totally off base with such an idea. I do not have his permission to quote him, for which reason he will remain anonymous, but I wanted to share with you a portion of my response to him, hoping that someone more versed in biblical prophecy might care to straighten me up on this. Here is what I wrote to this young man:
*********
"As I read Daniel 8 again and again , I discovered that the prophet was concerned about the future of his people--the Jews--and the Jewish nation. He did not have the heavenly sanctuary in mind, but rather the earthly Jewish Temple. I realized that the context did not allow for a heavenly sanctuary option. Notice the following question preceding verse 14: 'How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled--the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot.'
Clearly the vision was in reference to the earthly sanctuary, and not the heavenly, because it talks about the 'daily sacrifice.' There is no daily sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary! Jesus died only once. The daily sacrifice can only refer to the earthly sanctuary. This is crystal clear, and even a ten year old boy can understand this as the correct way of interpreting this verse. Besides, the question was: 'How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled.'
If the vision starts with Greece, and Alexander's victory over the kings of Media and Persia, then it is anachronistic to make the order for the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple the starting point of this prophecy. The question does not say: How long will the new temple last, but rather how long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled. The context clearly indicates that the starting point for the vision is the battle between Alexander the Great and the kings of Media and Persia.
Chapter 9 is a completely separate prophecy and has a totally different starting point: the order to rebuild Jerusalem. Daniel 8 is not the place to study the role of Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. The book of Hebrew is the right place for such a study. It is the only book in the bible devoted to the study of such an issue."
*********
Of course, I was using some of the ideas I borrowed from Des Ford. Now, if you apply this interpretation originated by John Newton, three centuries ago, we arrive not at 1844, but rather 1967 A.D. Did anything significant for Daniel's people--the Jews--take place in 1967? Of course. The Six Day War between Israel and the Arab nations, which allowed Israel access to their sacred city--Jerusalem.
Does this make sense to any of you? I hear almost a total silence! Tell me at least that I am all wet!
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic,
I suggest there are no OT "time" prophecies that extend into the NT era.(post Christ and the 1st century church and fall of Jerusalem)
General prophetic events are described in Revelation as they apply to the church as it relates to the world and future... "at times" repetitive situations and events until the consummation.
Get your umbrella...it's wet :~)
pat
nicsamojluk
If you subscribe to the view that the little horn was fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes you must find him as figuring prominently in chapters 11 and 12. It is impossible then to conclude that chapter 12 discusses matters that occur thousands of years later. Everything must be fullfilled in the 2nd century unless you adopt a gap theory like the dispensationlists.
Moreover, I would love for someone to justify Dr. Ford's view that the little horn has multiple applications. Can anyone identify one NT writer who supports this kind of application of the little horn?
It is interesting that no one has defended Dr. Ford's view that EGW is a prophet but the IJ is a false teaching.
If calvary represent the complete fulfillment of the day of atonement, as Ford claims, why does Christ continue a ministry of intercession? Have we been living in the day of atonement for that past 2000 years? How would that give the christian assurance?
My overall point is that Dr. Ford's teachings cannot be defended.
Dear Nic,
Re: your comment on 1967. The coming of the kingdom of God brought the Judgment at the Cross (yes it was planned from the beginning of the universe, and yes it has a final application). Nevertheless, all that was needed for the Judgment was provided at the Cross. ‘I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life’. The future judgment for the believer is a ratification of his belief in Christ. A limited illustration is getting a passport months ahead and having it stamped (or not) by the customs officer when you arrive at your destination. The OT didn’t see a huge gap between the First and Second coming, but sees them as one event. The stone that hits the mountain in Daniel 2 is not just the first Advent as Adventists have traditionally believed, it encompasses both comings. Jesus is God’s Last Word. He did not come to save the world apologetically with a small flurry of a breeze, but with a mighty earthquake that contracted time and history. We like puzzles and we want to do the math to work out when Jesus will come, but the coming of God’s kingdom with Christ, the contraction of history, and the superimposing of the Second Advent on the First means that this type of calculation is finished and historicist interpretation won’t do. The disciples were like us, they wanted to know when Jesus would return, and he told them the same old warring and famine and earthquakes would keep happening. Believers would be persecuted and put to death, and hated because of him. Many would turn away, many would betray and hate each other, and many false prophets would appear. Wickedness would keep increasing, and love would grow cold. It would be the same old, same old over and over again, but with wickedness ever increasing as the end approached. But despite the chaos and the hurt we were to stand firm till the end and be saved. And the great sign he gave was, ‘And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come’. The same principles of good and evil working out their ways will keep on repeating till the end. But we are to watch because we do not know on which day our Lord will come. And so, historicist devices and date-setting such as 1844 for the Adventists, 1914 for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and 1967 for the Jews are anachronistic chronophages, which means out-of-date time-wasters. In my opinion, this is a very important point at the heart of the discussion of the IJ, though I probably haven’t said it well. If you can’t follow me and are able to be in Loma Linda this weekend, ask Des a question at Campus Hill Church where he will be speaking this Sabbath afternoon at 3 p.m.
Greg In response to your request- here is my story as shared with friends at the time with a short P.S. added. Tom
My Emancipation Proclamation
“Free at Last! Free at Last! Thank God All Might, (I’m) Free at Last.” 1
Those words echoed through may mind recently as I passed the marquee of a fundamentalist church which carried the banner: “Christ Could Come today: Be Prepared!” My earliest memories are of “getting ready for Jesus to come”—first to greet a beloved Santa Claus, later to face an avenging “burning” judge. As I entered the age of accountability, getting ready and being ready hung like a cloud over my head. That cloud didn’t evaporate completely until I attended the Thursday evening worship service at The National Congress on Church-Related Colleges and Universities held June 21, 1979 at the University of Notre Dame. The Rev. L. D. Johnson, Chaplain, Furman University spoke to the delegates representing 28 denominations. His sermon title was “Our Basic Common Beliefs”. With some amusement I took a center seat about ten rows from the front. I was motivated by the thought: what is the world can a Baptist chaplain have to share with the diverse elite gathered? It seemed to me that he had cut out an impossible task: not unlike the sermon title I read 30 years before: “Man, God, and the Universe”.
I was soon struck by his comfort level with the pulpit, the subject, and his audience. It was obvious he was a Christian first and a Baptist second. He logically and quickly came to his bottom line. “One can say more, but one cannot say less that: “Christ is Lord”. Prior to that moment “Christ is Lord” was just a bumper sticker from the deep South. At that moment, I realized, for the first time, that Christ was not simply to appear as Lord of Lords. He was Lord of Lords! He was Lord of Lords from eternity and in a unique redemptive sense from the moment of His Resurrection. All the human doubt and fear that He rolled away early that Easter morning fell at that moment from my shoulders, mind, and heart.
For the first time, I realized that, as His witness, my testimony was not of His soon return, but of the assurance founded upon His History: His Advent: His Life: His Sacrifice: and His Resurrection. The field house at Notre Dame became my Damascus Road which was just a few miles from my place of birth 46 years before. From a doubt driven sectarian, I became an assured apostle of salvation.
“With malice toward none and charity for all”2 I share my story to free each doubt-filled soul from the bondage and fear from any and all sectarian dogma.
I was born to loving parents. The mothers of both my parents were proselytized by itinerant sectarian “evangelists” out of main stream Christian churches when my parents were in their early teens. A key element of their new found faith was the need for a “Christian” education. Thus it was at a sectarian “Bible college” that my parents studied, met, and subsequently married. They lived their lives in faith and trust. Table talk began with worship—mornings were “Dare to be a Daniel” variety, evenings were “Come unto Me all ye that labor and are heavy laden” genre. They also sought to give their children the benefits of a “Christian” education in the same setting they had found each other. If they had any doubts, they didn’t share them with their children. Fully confident in our parents’ love and completely trusting their wisdom and judgment we sought the “truth: with the zeal of a Daniel. We marched off to do battle with the devil with: “Onward Christian Soldiers” ringing in our ears and “Dare to be a Daniel” singing in our hearts.
As the “Special Truths for Our Times” unfolded in Bibles classes, trust and confidence gave way to fear and doubt. Central to the sectarian doctrine was a dichotomous Gospel: Redemption by Faith and Salvation by Works. The Reformational concept of Righteousness by Faith was considered operative until a date certain to God alone, at which time, probation would close and those “sealed” would have to live perfect lives solo (without training wheels or safety nets) until the Second Advent. Those two conflicting propositions were reconciled by a special work of Christ called the Investigative Judgment. This special work was the invention of a residual group of Millerites who were greatly disappointed on October 23, 1844 when Christ did not return as expected on October 22, 18444. According to their postulates, Christ could not return until a final generation of at least 144,000 perfect persons would emerge to vindicate Christ. Furthermore, the Parusia was postponed until this dichotomous Gospel was preached into all the World.
These sectarian postulates carried the imprimatur of their self-appointed prophetess. By her testimony, she was shown in graphic detail not only church history but future events. Her revelations “verified” and frequently paraphrased Reformational historians and “validated” the proposition of the dominate members of her residual group of Millerites. Having grounded her authority on orthodox Reformational history, she devoted her life to defining perfection and condemning sin. While her writing generally demonstrated some balance and Gospel intent: zealots undertook to abstract her work into “Selected Messages” generally cutting out all Gospel and leaving nothing but “Law”. Thus scores of books and collections of her writings appeared to direct, to reprove, to chastise, and to exhort adherents to sinlessness. No personal, private, or public thought or action was left undefined or “unrebuked”. She emerged as God’s final authority on food, dress, occupation, recreation, worship, loyalty, and relationship. Even the number of meals a day became a test of moral perfection.
Imagine the consternation of any sensitive soul caught up in this dilemma. How to become perfect? How to stay perfect? How to evangelize the world with this secret terror? How I wished I could have traded places with Paul, or Martin Luther who preached a monolithic gospel: The Rock of Ages plus nothing! But I lived on the wrong side of the great divide of 1844. I lived in the time of the Investigative Judgment. No one knew when my name might come up in Judgment. It might be while I was contemplating the great themes of the Bible or more likely when I was considering the girl in the body hugging yellow sweater two seats ahead in the next row in Bible Doctrines class. “Every secret thought will be called up in judgment!” My God! How embarrassing, if not down right cruel. I felt like the woman caught in adultery!”
Dad, always the pragmatist, referred to two quotations from the “Spirit of Prophecy”: “The kingly power of reason” and “True to duty as the needle to the pole”. These rational axioms, plus the exigencies of daily living, and the assurance of loving parents kept me in rational control of my fears and doubts as I sought reconciliation of these conflicting propositions of at-one-ment with God.
I spent my army years and my professional training years playing the part of Daniel in King Nebuchadnezzar’s court. During my professional training on the Chicago campus of the University of Illinois, I attended a Sabbath School class taught by a young Pauline scholar at the University of Chicago. He impressed me with his use of the kingly power of reason.
My first career appointment was at Marquette University. My Catholic friends thought I practiced Lent year around.
I joined the Seventh-day Adventist church in Milwaukee and accepted a leadership role as local elder. Soon, a ministerial intern joined the ministerial staff. He came with a mission to get Milwaukee ready for the Second Coming. He found friends among certain conservative zealots who were troubled about the “worldliness” in a “big city” urban church. They were particularly vexed that several professional members, myself included, ate in restaurants where alcohol was served and worldly elevator music was played. (In a city of 600,000 there were 2000 restaurants with beer licenses.) They formed a study group to comb the “writing” for benchmarks of a “Christian Leader”. They brought their ‘list” to the senior pastor for endorsement. With some reluctance he agreed that anyone nominated or appointed to church office must agree to the list and pledge to honor it.
The list was distributed at a Church Board Meeting. A young attorney and I found the concept offensive. We first suggested that the list was far from complete. We suggested several obvious omissions, consisting primarily of behavioral oversights indulged by the proponents of the loyalty list: such as membership in organized labor—the lay chair of the advocacy group being a member of organized labor.
We were voted down on any additions or alterations of the initial list. We next suggested that the conference officers of the Wisconsin Conference headquartered in Madison be asked to sign first. If the next level above the local church signed, we would reconsider our opposition. We failed again. A vote was taken. Only two of us voted against the loyalty list. (This was in the high days of Senator Joe McCarthy.)
The Nominating Committee wasn’t formed until months later. When the presiding elder brought up appointments to the Nominating Committee, my friend and I asked for the list of those who had signed the loyalty oath. We took the position that only those who had signed were capable of selecting those “safe” to serve. The presiding officer confessed that no one had signed. It was apparent that the vote taken months before was sufficient to separate the sheep from the goats. Why I still lived with doubts after that exchange I will never know, except that I must be a slow learner.
During my Milwaukee years, denominational leaders entered into dialogue with reform scholars on certain sectarian beliefs. The conclusion of these exchanges formed the corpus of a manuscript published as “Answers to Questions on Doctrine” . Naturally, I got a first copy. Some issues were too esoteric for a non-biblical scholar. Two things did strike me. The emphasis was on concurrence with Reformational doctrine with a down-
playing of sectarian positions. The role of special revelation was muted. As a result of this manuscript, the denomination was welcomed into the fellowship of conservative Reformational churches—a happening that the current denominational leaders coveted and welcomed.
At that time, I made a career move to Loma Linda University which was founded by direct authority of the prophetess. The University operated two campuses: one just West of Redlands, California and one in East Los Angeles. The city campus faculty exhibited a strong independence from the dogma held dear by their orange grove cousins. Naturally special revelation dominated the thinking and mores of the senior thought leaders located on the rural campus. My brother was a special favorite among them. He not only kept Lent year around—he was giving St. Francis of Assisi serious competition. With three professional and graduate degrees and a strong commitment to prevailing dogma he was slated for leadership among the orange grove crowd.
During my brother’s Francis of Assisi phase, I read an article in the denomination journal, “Signs of the Times” authored by a senior faculty member in the Division of Religion. Entitled as I recall: “The Centrality of the Cross”. It was a ringing endorsement of a monolithic Pauline gospel. I commented favorably on the paper to my brother. He responded: “Yes, but he was trained outside of the “Spirit of Prophecy”. Therefore he only knows the first half of the story. His Gospel you can die with, but it doesn’t answer how to live through the end time without a Mediator. I should have known my brother was struggling with his own set of fears and doubts.
Soon the twin issues: the tension between two campuses and the book Answers to Questions on Doctrine changed from a progressive apology to a threat to church harmony and security. Soon unauthorized critiques of the book were published and circulated including the unpublished thesis written by a senior theology student mentored by Desmond Ford, all of which found wide campus circulation and universal administrative disapproval.
Both sides indulged in a common strategy: lists and compilations from the “Spirit of Prophecy”. Loma Linda Messages—an underground (unauthorized) manuscript alleged to be E. G. White’s particular testimony to Loma Linda was a “must read”. What started out with pea shooters soon escalated to broadsides with real ecclesiastical canons. Retirement benefits were with drawn. Tenured faculty were dismissed. Careers were stunted. Certainly the “kingly power of reason” was in short supply.
For example, my brother, though tenured was dismissed because he insisted the academic freedom to pursue “Truth” regardless of source and the right of free association with Christian brethren, regardless of their view on a final generation. He found a faculty position at a state university in the South East. He requested his church membership be transferred.
The pastor of the University Church knew the letter of transfer would be bitterly opposed. Just prior to the Board Meeting he called me into his office. He said that as a brother and as a member of the Board I had the right to address the issue. He allowed that by the time I would be recognized, feelings might be riding high. He suggested he might recognize me with a little humor to lighten the moment. I agreed and said, I would try to respond in kind.
At the Session, my brother’s former friends took an aggressive hostile position opposing granting a letter. I asked for the floor. I was recognized with a quip. I rejoined, “I think this is a fair fight: One Zwemer against One World”. Several of my friends did a double take, not knowing if I was serious or facetious. I went on to say that what we did regarding my brother’s letter would have little to do with his standing with God, but much to do with ours. I emphasized that my brother had made public acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as his Savior. Nothing in his private or public life had ever repudiated that acknowledgement. Nor had he at any time, by voice, pen, or action, disowned his denominational fellowship or cast the denomination in an unfavorable light.
I recounted a story my dad was fond of telling. Frankie, his childhood friend and neighbor, kicked a goose that was quacking. His father in a heavy Italian accent shouted: “Frankie, why for you kick that goose in the belly?” Frankie responded, “Papa, he quacked at me!” I then observed that one need not kick a goose in the belly for quacking or beat a donkey for braying. Neither was it necessary to stone or burn those with contrary views of redemption. The vote was taken and Jack was granted a letter. Only to have a delegation from the “NO” voters fly to the South East and demand the Conference president order the local church to reject the letter—which he did. Fortunately, my brother’s faith and confidence in Jesus Christ as his personal Savior and coming King is undaunted. We speak and encourage one another daily.
During that confrontational period, the only calming influence was my friend from Chicago, now Chairman of the Division of Religion at Loma Linda, and his continuing Bible class. As a Pauline scholar he kept to Romans and Galatians and away from Daniel and Hebrews. As a result, a monolithic Gospel emerged, but with the muted temper of an Erasmus rather than the fervor of a Martin Luther: a brilliant strategy given the place and time.
In the midst of this mix of scholarship and wrangle, the phone rang early on Sunday morning. It was dad. His voice was controlled but urgent. “Tom,” he said, “I don’t want to worry mother, but I think I’m having a heart attack.” I made the four blocks in record time. Dad was sitting up in his reading chair with both hands over his left chest. He was ashen and in obvious pain. A few questions and I called the ambulance. Getting him into the car and up the hill to the hospital would have been too much strain. After the call, Dad said, “Tom would you pray for me?”
I replied, “Sure Dad.” I knelt at his knee like I was six again.
I was schooled in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. I knew by heart Paul’s encounter on the Road to Damascus. Martin Luther was my hero. John Wesley’s conversion was fresh in my mind. John Newton’s “Amazing Grace” was on my top ten list.
Yet I began my prayer: “Dear Lord, I present to you my dear father. He has been a good father, a caring husband, a fin---in a gruff voice, Dad cut me off sharply—“No! No! Tom!” “Lord” he prayed, “I am a sinner. I have nothing to offer. I seek Your mercy, Your grace, and Your healing: Amen” Further
Prayer was impossible and unnecessary. I came up on my knees and leaned over. We embraced wet cheek to wet cheek.
It was at that knee that I first heard the stories of stalwart faith. It was now, thirty years later, that I finally understood the depth of my father’s faith and the shallowness of my theology. Dad’s prayer was heard and answered. We didn’t say good-by until seven closely bonded years later. His last words to me were: “Tom, I’m sorry I didn’t leave you an inheritance.” “Dad”. I replied, “You made a man out of me. What more can a son ask?” We had a final wet cheek embrace.
During those seven years, the doctrinal battle exhausted the polemic powers of both sides. Both retreated to the scholarship of higher and lower criticism of the Scripture and the prophetess. The first casualty was the veracity of the prophetess and consequently the unique doctrine of the denomination: The Investigative Judgment and its concomitant—a final generation. Serious junior scholars tried to introduce a monolithic gospel in their classrooms. Serious senior tried to reconcile Daniel and Hebrews with denominational teachings. Both failed and both paid with their careers.
During the contest of scholars I was a member of the Board of Trustees of one of the denominational colleges. Zealots were trying to persuade the president to curb or terminate faculty who were presenting a monolithic gospel. He refused. He was threatened with removal if he did not comply. The polemics began again in earnest. In the midst of this turmoil, I was sent to Notre Dame and my rendezvous with destiny.
Because the loyalty of the leadership of the denomination was seriously challenged, the Board was forced to act. They demanded the resignation of the President. I opposed the action but was over ruled. I thought I was back in Milwaukee. The president stepped down. The scholars were muzzled or removed. I resigned not only my board membership but my denominational affiliation.
I soon met a Presbyterian minister endowed not only with the kingly power of reason but blessed with an unshakable monolithic gospel perspective of the past, present, and future. My faith is strong and my fellowship complete. I am glad I made the trip.
Even so Come Lord Jesus! I know He is able and prepared. If He is, So am I! “My Hope is Built on Nothing Less!”
Tom Zwemer
1. Martin Luther King Jr. March on Washington Speech.
2. Abraham Lincoln Second Inaugural.
P.S. The McKay’s and an independent Vance Farrell were pro-active in the removal of the President. It seems that a McKay daughter or grand-daughter either left the Church or demonstrated rather independent ways following a number of Bible Courses at SMC. Responsibility was laid at the door of the faculty and the President. Several charges were made by the MacKay’s against the President. It seems that he said in a SS Class that the book Messages to Young People should never have been published. It was not the work of EGW but was a cut and paste job by someone with an agenda, in which the context of much of the message was left on the cutting room floor. The Gospel was essentially missing. Second, he found no fault in the teachings of the Department of Religion, particularly the targeted three or four junior members with advanced degrees outside of Andrews.
All of this following Dallas and Glacier View.
I was a member of the Board and was covered with mailings from the McKay’s and Farrell. Unfortunately, I was promoted from Associate Dean of the School of Dentistry to Vice President for Academic Affairs at the Medical College of Georgia. It was a fruit basket upset affair. In the process many of my files were misplaced or destroyed so that I have only a few documents from that era.
I had been on the Board of Trustees of LLU for two terms as well as the Board of Trustees of SMC for eleven years. I had up close opportunity to observe the career of Neal Wilson. It was a classic in denominational politics—so Dallas and Glacier View as well as SMC were no surprise. They did comprise the corpus of my decision to remove myself from active membership in the SDA Church.
Seems like this blog is coming to an end? It's been very interesting, I've looked in every so often and found it better than most blogs I've read in the past. And, by and large, a better spirit than some. Thanks to Garry for having the courage to review the book, a surprise to us, and the interchange between him and Dave has been great. A few final notes of mine.
Re: Dave Larson saying he believes in evolution and the IJ should have been left to die out, this was also said at Glacier View. Some scholars were annoyed that Des had brought it up. But Des felt we were bringing people into the church and teaching them these things and we should be honest. I might add that Des went through the correct channels for years on the problems in Daniel; the church did virtually nothing. This hiding of the facts took place over many years. Harry Lowe, an Englishman who was one-time Ministerial Secretary of the ND and the head of the 1960 Daniel Committee (a saint, by the way) wrote a letter to Dr. Hammill at the time of GV, saying that Des had brought up nothing new that was not discussed in the 1960 Bible Committee. That Daniel Committee, which met repeatedly could not come to agreement and ended up not writing any consensus statements. Lowe, like Elder Pierson, could not attend GV because of the altitude. The letter from Pierson, which was highly prejudicial and untrue and still makes me bristle was read out from the front, while Harry Lowe’s was not. Maybe that was symbolic of the whole of GV when I think about it.
Once Bob Brinsmead started speaking against the IJ in the late 1970s, Des was asked about it in many meetings (he was speaking most weekends while in California). The Forum leaders genuinely thought the church was ready to discuss these problems. No one thought a huge crowd would turn up. Des thought there might be problems, but he was told he was speaking under the protection of Forum, plus he’d been told he wouldn’t be teaching when he went back to Australia (pressure from the conservatives). So he had nothing to lose. The October 1979 meeting is still available from Good News Unlimited, and if you listen to it carefully, the first half delineates the problems with the dates. But the second half suggests solutions. Some listeners were so shell-shocked, they only heard the first half.
Is it really an answer as Dave says (and other scholars said at GV), to sweep erroneous teachings under the carpet and just ignore them? Don’t you think it weakens the church to have people pretend they believe something when they don’t? It was true at the time of Glacier View that the IJ hadn’t been taught at Andrews for years (re: Dave saying he never heard a sermon on it). But they did reinstate the subject after GV.
In Australia where people can be as blunt as meat hooks, the reality is that many ministers were hunted out and forced to state what they believed in 1980 and at least 70 were fired or left, many of them over these issues. Some who didn't believe in the IJ either had the superior intelligence or glibness to be able to sound as though they did believe in it. Salvation by rhetoric you might call it. Some were protected in other ways by family ties. Others were protected by their presidents who were sympathetic. But we lost many wonderful men. If you read Dale Ratzlaff's latest book you will find many ministers and teachers agreed with him in private yet were able to survive in the church. He lists names; in our book we left the names out.
Des (and others) envisioned the church as it could be redefined in the light of the Gospel. Dave maybe envisions a church that is more liberal and inclusive than it really is. In times of peace there is considerable latitude of belief allowed by administration. But it seems that when the church is challenged it just reboots and goes back to where it started. The question is, will it ever change at the core?
Jashmead, you seem to say in paragraph one that Des only teaches Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel 11 and 12 and then in paragraph 2 you say he says the little horn has multiple fulfilments. The point you make in paragraph two, which is true, defuses the idea that Des only teaches AE in paragraph one. Ellen White and the BRI both teach that certain prophecies like Matthew 24 and Joel 2 have multiple fulfilments, but the current BRI disagrees with Des that this principle of recurring fulfilments applies to apocalyptic literature like Daniel. If you get hold of a copy of Des’s first commentary on Daniel, which was approved before Glacier View by the church (black cover with the embossed lion on it) you might find out what Des really teaches on the little horn, instead of what you think he teaches. Your posting shows you don’t really know what Des teaches, and if you are going to comment, it might be a good idea to find out.
Adrian
I apologize for leaving the impression I didn't believe in a judgment of the righteous. I agree with your caution regarding making absolute statements.
2 Cor 5:10 - "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."
I left the Scripture passages I earlier quoted in a hurry, thinking I would return later to finish with further commentary. Thanks for your understanding.
Tom
I always read your account with interest. The Brinsmead brothers, together with a certain Zwemer (Jack?), visited our mission college in the mid to late 1960's when I was student. Although they weren't welcome on campus, the group still found a sympathetic audience off campus among students as well as laypeople in the surrounding Adventist congregations who also gladly received their free Awakening Message literature. The school of theology dean, together with the editor of the publishing house, had a few private conversations with RDB in particular. I remember attending several week-end meetings that resulted in at least two unpublished critiques, one by the theology dean ("Is Robert Brinsmead a responsible critic?") and another by Gottfried Oosteral ("Praise God In His Sanctuary"). They concluded, perhaps wrongly, that American Adventists would have been far more tolerant of RDB's views than our Australian brethren. Nevertheless, our conference/mission administrative clergy acted swiftly so that several ministerial graduates I knew who had started their internships weren't able to continue.
Gill,
Thanks for you thoughts. It is always easier to accuse than to know what your adversary actually says...correctly state it and then say why and where you disagree.
I look forward to seeing Des again tomorrow.
Regards,
pat
PS. Perhaps a way for some to see Des' point is that an "anti-Christ's" attitudes and actions can be repeated in many forms in history. All antichrists ultimately manifest themselves against the true kingdom of God, Christ and it's members.
It can appear in the most unlikely of places and combinations...secular, religious and in combination of efforts.
Wasn't Robert Brinsmead a proponent early in his career of perfectionism, and roundly rejected by the official church?
Later when he abandoned perfectionism, the Church had then come to adopt and support more perfectionistic views.
In the late 1970s Southern Publishing Association published a book on Perfectionism with essays by Herb Douglas (maybe you can help us if you are reading this) and three others.
By this time, Brinsmead was squarely out of the mainstream of church thinking again and very opposed to his earlier view of perfectionism.
I remember finding this ironic. Does anyone else remember this?
So, I'm wondering, Joselito, which phase Brinsmead was in when he visited the Philippines?
I hope everyone has a blessed time with Dr. Ford. I enjoyed watching and listening to Des Ford every Sabbath at PUC. I also enjoyed taking classes from Erwin Gane, who was very opposed to Ford's views. The debates in the dorms were something to behold! Isn't this what academia should be like? I didn't want either one of them to be thrown out. I also enjoyed singing at the Yountville Veterans Home each week with Roy Gane. And I know the administrators wanted us to think...alike! During his lecture, Ford said that if you treat people like children...they are going to act like children. The church members sure acted like children when confronted with something they had never thought of before.
Those songs were irreverent, but I actually sang some of them...and occasionally, I still sing some of them. It's all because of Eric and Wayne! The one I liked best was 'Dare to be a Daniel! Dare to stand alone! Dare to think of something new! Dare to make it known!' Then there was 'Rust and Obey...for there's no other way...to avoid unemployment...but to rust and obey.' Or 'the church's one foundation...the Ellen White Estate.' Sorry. People are so reactionary...especially when they KNOW that they are right, and have EVERYTHING figured out...and are spiritually proud and triumphalistic! But to treat everything as though it were all a big joke is equally destructive. There was a lot of both at PUC. Like a pastor friend of mine said at the time, '$7,000 a year is a lot of money to pay for cynicism.' Perhaps there should be classes in how to always have a constructive attitude, and how to deal with controversial/upsetting people and ideas without going nuts. I hope no one goes nuts this weekend...
Alden Thompson is an authority on the phases of Brinsmead.
But as I understand his first three phases-- they are as follows: One and two are a mix or maturation which I cannot separate clearly.
1/2 An advocate of the M.L. Andreasen view of perfectionism, in which Brinsmead tried to to equate the cleansing of the Heavenly Sancutary with the cleansing of the Soul Temple in the "Sealing" . By this cleansing, original sin would be removed and a final generation would then be retested--a precusor of the Herbert Douglass/Review position later which continues to this day without the original sin component which they reject.
3. A return to Reformational Theology which basically rejected any final generation demonstration and brought question on the entire IJ theology.
Basically, the final straw was in phase 3. John Brinsmead did not follow Bob. He knew that Bob's press had done a favor for Des in printing, without up front cost, Des's thesis on Dan 8:14
At the time of Glacier View, John went to the Division President and told him that Des and Bob were together on Des's views. The Division President put in an urgent call to Neal Wilson at Glacier View. Neal took Des for a walk and told Des that it is all over. Neal said, I know your connection with Bob Brinsmead. Despite your agreement with the consensus paper, I will be asking for your resignation. Gill will have to confirm this version--but I had it from a usually very reliable source. I do know for sure that Bob's press did the prihting of Des's paper. Tom.
The following is a response(the final phase?) I received from another continent regarding a focus on the red-letter teachings of Jesus:
"Thank-you for your observations. You could have added that in the creeds of the Church, starting with the Apostle’s Creed, the only mention of the historical Jesus is that he died. Zero reference to anything he taught. We need the teaching of the man and not all this rubbish taught about the man. Your suggestion is so simple, so powerful. Do it!"
I just might.
Mrs. Ford,
As I understand your husbands views, he suggests that the primary fulfillment of the little horn found in Daniel 8 is Antiochus Epiphanes. He does see mutliple fulfillments of the passage as you indicates as well. If we follow his view then Daniel 12 must follow the same pattern of multiple fulfillments. I would presume that Antiochus must figure prominently in chapters 10-12 of Daniel as well.
In Daniel 11 we find the following passage that I believe corresponds to Daniel 8:13-14. 11:31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation." Here the king of the North engages in the same actions as those described for the the little horn in chapter 8.I would guess that Dr. Ford would claim that the primary fulfillment of this passage is antiochus Epiphanes.
Following the actions of the king of the north, Michael stands up, there is a time of trouble, and then the saints receive eternal life. If we follow the model outlined by Dr. Ford, all of these activities must first find their primary fulfillment in the actions of Antiochus, both as the little horn and the king of the north.
I am asking for the primarly fulfillment of the saints receiving eternal life in Daniel 12. I would presume that the primary meaning of this event occured in the 2nd century when the sanctuary was cleansed.
Dr. Zwermer,
Do you believe that Dr. Ford is correct when he claims that EGW had the gift of prophecy while at the same time he rejects the IJ?
PLM and Tom,
The final phase for Bob B. was "Verdict" magazine. Bob's view was perhaps close to what I perceive of Ratzlaff in what might be described as a "Spirit led antinomianism".
Des disagreed with Bob's phase 3 as also with Ratzlaff. Des pointed out the relation to covenant and Heb.8 and 9 in speaking to the latter. Des remained a Sabbatarian while Bob and Ratzlaff did not.
I appreciate greatly Bob's Present Truth publications which very much aligned themselves with Reformation theology.
regards,
pat
The problems that the Adventist church has been engaged in for more than 100 years could easily have been avoided had they recognized that we would not have the book of Daniel, were it not for the Jews. They preserved and kept the Hebrew Scriptures and they accorded Daniel as one of the "Writings" and NOT classified in the Prophets. In so doing, they also recognized that book as the last one of their writings and never considered it to be prophetic; unlike later Christians who interpreted its apocalyptic sayings as extending 2000 years into the Christian Era.
The entire controversy would be moot if the date, given by the Jews, as ca. 160 B.C. had been accepted as the date covered by the book.
There are many questionable parts of the book:
1. Chapters 1-6 are written in the third person, whereas 7-12 are in the first person.
2. The Four kingdoms motive as four metals, appears earlier in Hesiod (ca. 700 B.C. as well as in a late Persian text.
3. There was no Darius the Mede; Darius (ruled from 522-486 B.C.) was a Persian. This is only one of the indications that the tales are not contemporaneous with the events described.
Do Christians know more about the time and events described in Daniel than the Jews who wrote and preserved it?
Yes, Robert Brinsmead, the Adventist Lucifer! Now there was man who was able to bring out the absolute worst in the SDA gerontocracy. The 1950s was a decade of conformity, a decade in which the McCarthy-ites bared their teeth at the least ideological deviation from orthodoxy. In that context I suppose it is understandable that Adventist leaders would begin hyperventilating at the thought of orthodoxy--the literal Truth from Heaven--being subverted by a zealous college student from Australia. But at the same time it made the General Conference look like the Politburo of the Soviet Union, which spent the 1960s sending their independent thinkers to labor camps.
I met Robert Brinsmead a handful of times in the late 1970s. Unlike Ford he was not a great speaker, but he was a great writer, and he had an incredible ability to absorb and analyze large amounts of scholarship in the area of theology. Just like Des Ford he had a prodigious memory and full mastery of Adventist arcana.
His weakness, in my opinion, was his solitary mind. Bob Brinsmead was not a community builder. He attracted followers, but to him they were simply an audience. I may be wrong in this, but it didn't seem to be that ego played much of a role in his life as a crusader for truth. His passion was strickly ideas and he pursued his own truth with utter disregard to whether people followed him or not.
I put him up in my apartment in Oslo while I was an editor at the Adventist Publishing House. He had been to Finland, invited by some Lutheran/Evangelical theological society and stopped in Norway for a seminar for Adventists on his way back to the States. My conference president was alerted to the fact that he was staying at my place, and the second day he showed up at my office and raked me over the fire, calling me "a Judas" and informing me that I had gotten myself so tangled up in the snares of Satan that I'd never be able to extricate myself from him.
I was naturally distraught, an emotional wreck. I was young and idealistic--as well as reckless (or a maverick, to use GOP language). To me Brinsmead was not Lucifer but a Christian brother with sound theology, and my conference president's accusations hit me like a ton of bricks.
Bob Brinsmead must have seen such wreckage litter his wake for years but it still struck me as odd that he had nothing to say, no words of comfort, no words of advice. His mind was elsewhere, all Paul and no Jesus.
Heart matters.
Pat,
Thanks for your comments posted on 05 September 2008 at 3:40. You believe that “there are no OT ‘time"’ prophecies that extend into the NT era. (post Christ and the 1st century church and fall of Jerusalem)” Well, I just checked what the Angel Gabriel said about the 2300 days time prophecy and discovered that it was meant to be applied to “the time of the end.” [Daniel 8: 17]
By the way, I did get my umbrella as you suggested, but as I stepped outside, I discovered we had fair weather and it was not raining!
Jashmead,
On 05 September 2008 at 4:39 you stated the following: “If you subscribe to the view that the little horn was fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes you must find him as figuring prominently in chapters 11 and 12. It is impossible then to conclude that chapter 12 discusses matters that occur thousands of years later. Everything must be fullfilled in the 2nd century unless you adopt a gap theory like the dispensationalists.”
The vision of the 2300 days starts with the he-goat [Alexander the Great] and, according to the Angel Gabriel extends to “the time of the end.” [Daniel 8:17] Antiochus Epiphanes is dead. His role as far as the Jews is concerned represented a partial fulfillment of this prophecy. Further fulfillment took place at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem to which Jesus alluded to.
In answer to the question: “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled,” the angel responded with “It will take 2300 evenings and mornings” [8:14] and he added: “the vision concerns the time of the end.”
I conclude that the vision was meant for a much longer period than merely 70 A.D. when the Jewish temple was destroyed. This is why John Newton’s interpretation appeals to me. It takes the fulfillment at least until 1967 A.D.
The prophet was concerned about the restoration of the Temple services. It makes no sense to end the prophecy with the destruction and its profanation in 70 A.D. Verse 14 supports this view, since it states: “It will take 2300 evening and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.” The Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967 provided access to the Wailing Wall where the Jewish temple once stood.
You also stated the following: “It is interesting that no one has defended Dr. Ford's view that EGW is a prophet but the IJ is a false teaching.” My view is that the role of prophets was to encourage believers especially under trying circumstances, and not to provide an infallible exegesis of biblical prophetical utterances. Following the great disappointment there was a great need for reassurance about the Second Coming of Jesus.
Bible predictions have multiple applications, and there was nothing wrong with using one of them to strengthen the faith of the pioneers. Our mistake was to enshrine the IJ doctrine as a fundamental belief of the church. She encouraged us to study the Bible, and warned in her book “Counsel to Writers and Editors” that we might have to abandon “certain doctrines [that] have been held as truth for many years.” [p.35] I believe that the IJ is one of them.
You also asked the following question: “If Calvary represents the complete fulfillment of the Day of Atonement, as Ford claims, why does Christ continue a ministry of intercession?” I believe that Ellen White may have an answer to your question. In her book Education p. 63, Ellen has the most comprehensive explanation for the cross:
“Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ’s agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God.”
Most Christians view the cross as an event in history, and they have ample biblical support for this; nevertheless, the Bible also teachers that “in all their afflictions, he was afflicted,” thus agreeing with Ellen’s all inclusive view of the cross I cited. Viewed this way means that God’s Lamb was “slain from the foundation of the world.” God’s suffering began with Lucifer’s rebellion, and it will end with the final eradication of sin from the universe.
Gillian,
Thanks for your comments posted on 05 September 2008 at 5:03. I read them with great interest. I must say that I admire Des’ integrity and honesty and the way he has dealt with this issue under such trying circumstances. Some people think that he should have kept quiet. For three years after graduation I had the privilege of preparing people for baptism, and I regret having indoctrinated candidates with the erroneous IJ doctrine.
Of course, I knew no better. This is why I am glad that Des had the courage of defending biblical truth regardless of the consequences. Had others shared the same spirit, a lot of suffering and pain could have been avoided.
Regarding the cross, my view is posted above in my response to Jashmead. It is based on the most comprehensive view of the cross I have discovered in Ellen White’s writings. My suggestion of 1967 as a partial fulfillment of the Daniel 8:14 prophecy has nothing to do with setting a date for the Second Coming. I think that the 1844 experience should be a dire warning to anybody attempting to predict what Jesus said it was God’s prerogative.
Tom,
Thank you for including in your long 05 September 2008 at 5:49 posting the anecdote with your dad when he was experiencing heart trouble. I felt the time to read your entire comments was worth the trouble because it led me to this gem. You seem to be pretty good at telling stories. It reminded me of my personal experience with my own father a few days before he died.
The pastor asked my sister whether we wanted him anointed. She asked me, and I said: “What can a few drops of olive oil do for a dying man?” My sister went ahead with the anointing. I went to visit him the following day, and I discovered to my great surprise that he was in such good spirits, and he kept repeating: “I do not deserve this. I do not deserve this. I do not deserve such a blessing.”
I realized that it was not the olive oil, but rather God’s blessing on a man who had lived the Gospel in his daily life, but needed the reassurance of God’s salvation before his death. That day I resolved that if I ever were offered the opportunity of being anointed, I would gladly accept such privilege.
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
Orthodoxymoron wrote: "The one I liked best was 'Dare to be a Daniel! Dare to stand alone! Dare to think of something new! Dare to make it known!'"
Posted by: orthodoxymoron | 05 September 2008 at 9:32
Thanks for sharing some of the songs. I thought the one above here was: "Dare to be a Desmond! Dare to stand alone! Dare to think of something new! Dare to make it known!"
Regarding the ethics of the songs, I remember Dr. Eric Syme considered satire to be healthy and therapeutic; and he supported his colleagues.
Happy Sabbath,
Mike
Nic,
My question addresses Daniel 8 in light of Daniel 11 where the little horn is called the King of the North. The sequence of events that follow the activity of the king of the north suggests that Dr. Ford is completely wrong when he asserts that Antiochus Epiphanes is the primary or first fulfillment of the little horn. If this is his claim, then he must explain how this fits in with the saints receiving eternal life after Michael stand up. There is no event that occured in the second century that will correspond with the king of the north/little horn and the saints receiving eternal life.
Jesus identified the entity that would defile the sanctuary. He did not identify the time for the cleansing/vindication of the sanctuary. I am not quite certain why you believe access to the wailing wall is a vindication of the sanctuary. It seems to me that Christ's life, death and resurrection would render the sanctuary on earth useless. This seems to me to be the essential message of the book of Hebrews.
To all of the above.
I had Bob and John as guests in my home on their first visit to LLU. I found them bright, self assured and full of themselves. I believe Bob's fourth phase is akin to Gnostic
thought. It is a shame such a great talent and drive could
end its public career in such a manner.
I believe his great writing, largely his third phase, is largely due to a number of ghost writers a few known to me but I have been asked they remain ghost writers.
I don't know how Des reconciles EGW's role. I do believe that the Conflict of the Ages series is an adult Uncle Arthur
Bible Stories. Of course, The end-time section of Great Controvery is a hoot of mid-19th century thought and culture. Tom
At the time of Glacier View, John went to the Division President and told him that Des and Bob were together on Des's views. The Division President put in an urgent call to Neal Wilson at Glacier View. Neal took Des for a walk and told Des that it is all over. Neal said, I know your connection with Bob Brinsmead. Despite your agreement with the consensus paper, I will be asking for your resignation. Gill will have to confirm this version--but I had it from a usually very reliable source. I do know for sure that Bob's press did the prihting of Des's paper. Tom.
Tom, John went to the Division President, Pastor Parmenter, in the South Pacific, about a year before Glacier View and told him that Des was in cahoots with Bob, and I understand John was consulted on more than one occasion. You’ll notice Parmenter accused Des of being in cahoots with Bob Brinsmead when in fact he was in cahoots with John Brinsmead. John said Bob has attacked the church; now Des has attacked the church; soon they will attack the church together. Bob told me about this about in 1988 or 1989, because I asked him about it—there were always rumours flying around (I was the supposed go-between for Des and Bob). Bob wrote me a recent lengthy email, which confirmed that this happened. Bob believes this was the reason GV occurred, purely political. Certainly if you had been present at the Friday afternoon meeting, which I discuss in the Baby book, you might have thought so. Also there is confirmation on the other side that John signed an affadavit at the Division Office about the information he gave at the Division office. Milton Hook has copies of the evidence both sides (he just wrote Des’s biography). The thing was we were never informed by the brethren of John’s accusation at Glacier View or ever since. One of the letters Keith Parmenter wrote to Des (about a year before GV) mentions that a Brinsmead family member had visited him, but you would have to know what I have said in order to understand at the time what it meant. I.e. it only makes full sense read looking backwards. I don’t think I read that letter at the time, but Milton Hook gave us a copy a few years ago, and I felt more kindly towards Pastor Parmenter reading it. Neal didn’t take Des for a walk, but Brinsmead was a large part of the conversation on the Friday afternoon at GV. We were never told of John’s accusation, so didn’t understand why Prexad focussed on it so much. Bob may have printed things of Des’s and he did distribute the Oct 1979 tapes, but he never asked Des whether he could do it. Des wouldn’t mind. Anyone can use anything Des has written without copyright, as far as he is concerned. Des and Bob used to discuss theology over many years. Much of the time they disagreed, but Des always had a lot of time for Bob, considered him a friend, and thought him sincere. But there was no collusion. As Des would say, just because we differ, can’t we be friends and discuss our differences? Many in Adventism would say no, as did Dr. Erwin Gane. Colin and Cheryl Standish came to our home in the 1980s or 1990s; they lived about 17 miles north of us in Weimar. We visited Weimar and were on perfectly cordial terms and still are on a personal level. They are welcome in our home. After Russell Standish lost his credentials in Australia, he called Des to ask him what severance pay he’d received. Des once said to Russell in my hearing, Russell, you could hit me over the head with a hammer, and I’d still be your friend. Surely that’s a sign of maturity when supposed enemies can have a conversation? Des rejoiced that Bob was preaching righteousness by faith in the 1970s and early 1980s, and when asked in the Friday meeting to damn Brinsmead in the church papers in order to himself survive, he refused to do it. He was never a political animal. But when approaches were made for Des to join Brinsmead on the way back home to California from Glacier View, he refused.
jashmead. Write me at gford1@bigpond.net.au and I will get Des to respond to this when he gets back. I see what you are saying, and Michael standing up is not Antiochus Epiphanes, as I understand it. I think Des would say that in Daniel there are apocalyptic prophecies (note the symbols and imagery) and that Daniel 10-12 is a different genre (more history, less symbols). But one of the reasons I usually don’t post is because I don’t like to represent what Des thinks. He is far smarter than me and certainly better studied. So he needs to speak for himself. He won’t be home for three weeks and surely the blog will have died out by then. Des has written several books on Daniel; most of what’s in the black Daniel he still believes, the most important material is in the footnotes.
Gillian
Thank you for clearing up a lot of the details for me.
I don't think I suggested a collusion between Bob and Des.
I did know they had a long history together beyond school.
I know Des to be an honorable man and have no doubts about Bob's high regard for Des.
I think we all owe a lot to both, in making us think and
do our own study and make our own choices.
Thank you again.
Tom
Since the blog is dying down, I want to make one more posting and then stop being a blog hog. Re: two of Greg Schneider’s objections to Des’s book.
We still have contacts in PUC of course. There seemed, at least when I last caught up with it, to be a lot of disgruntlement over PUC's choice re: the land sale. The person we contact has had a lifetime of experience in real estate and says the group buying it is known for building low class housing. Non-SDAs went to Angwin for the peaceful setting Angwin offers and feel the decision to increase building will bring a heavier traffic load, more call on Angwin’s supply of well-water and more crime in what has been to date an exclusive spot. Our person is also close to another education facility president who told her their practice is to buy more and more land around them rather than selling it, and he thought the idea was a mistake. No doubt the college would come back and argue about this. And maybe they are right. But this is why Des mentioned about PUC selling land. I didn’t want a local issue to become central on this blog, so I left it till the end to mention.
Also re: Des’s comments on the Hutu-Tutsi problem—about two weeks ago Ron Lawson (the SDA sociologist from New York who teaches at university) had a meal with us. He said that when he visited Africa he found that pastors preached every Sabbath on the image in Daniel 2. Disconcerted by this, he spoke to one of the African scholars, and he admitted he did the same. Des's comments about the Tutsis are not so far out. It is the gospel that changes hearts and if it's not preached, the heathen will stay heathen and the converted Catholic will stay basically Catholic just changing the day of worship and adding the prophecies (which are intellectually fascinating, but don't change the heart). There are a number of metaphors for salvation, but the Bible uses the term justification more than all the others. ‘For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’. Christ is our substitute in the Judgment and takes our place. Marriage is legal, not necessarily legalistic. Justification is not a legalistic term, but a legal term. We have met missionaries who rue the fact that they when overseas they did not know the gospel themselves and regret what they taught in the third world. So this is what Des is saying. If you teach doctrine only, it doesn’t change the heart.
Nevertheless, a wild hedgehog (as Greg described Des) is a wonderful hanimal and we liked it. Better than being a sloth; better than being a mouse hiding in a corner. The British are very fond of hedgehogs. I’m British of course.
Gill
Just a side note on Antiochus Epiphanus...
The Jews of the 1st c. believed that he was the fufillment of the little horn. That means that this was not simply some middle-age, counter-reformational, or dispensational creation to divert attention from the papacy, as is so often taught in Adventism. It also means that Antiochus Epiphanes has been viewed as a viable fufillment of this image in the history of interpretation.
Alden Thompson has addressed this as part of the multiple fufillment of prophecy... what he calls the idealistic view, as opposed to preterist, historical and futurist. From what I could gather, the idealist view embraces the other three, and provides a more open ended view of prophetic fufillment. IOW, one can never rest in the idea that they have a complete and static picture of fufillment that seals the deal, so to speak. The future is still open for greater understanding, and applicable developments. Developments that would further unfold the meaning and scope of prior fufillment and understanding. I find this a fertile line of thought, especially for those who feel that truth is something that is ever unfolding.
I also wonder how such a view relates to Dr. Ford's idea of multiple fufillment in apocalyptic... the apotelesmatic principle?
Thanks...
Frank
I propose a new Church Doctrine. Boarding Academy and Colllege/University tutition payments shall be considered as tithe and offerings. Saving our young people should be the church's highest priority and the primary return to the Lord of our issue! Be fruitful and multiple commandment carries some fiscal responsibility. He doesn't need our money. He died for us and our children. Our economy is entirely different than that of the 40 years in the desert. Tom
I am responding to the following question:
To Mike M. and anyone else who wants to offer an answer:
What is the difference between the biblical "pre-Advent judgment" and the so-called unbiblical SDA doc. of "investigative judgment"??
I wait a reply.
If you prefer, you may use my email:
morninglightwpep@yahoo.com
Posted by: Barry Kimbrough (not verified) | 03 September 2008 at 2:42
The primary difference between the Biblical PreAdvent Judgment and the SDA IJ is Miller's time-setting theory
which was carried over into SDA theology and greatly influenced its evolution after Oct. 22, 1844. The Biblical
PreAdvent judgment teaches nothing whatsoever about time-setting either the Advent or the Judgment. In fact, Jesus Himself told His disciples "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power." (See Acts 1:6-8; Mark 13: 14, 32 KJV and John 14:26 RSV. See also Matt. 24:36 RSV.)
Miller's unbiblical time-setting theory is what resulted in the date Oct. 22, 1844 and eventually the later SDA IJ doctrine which was basically a reinterpretation of the Great Disappointment on that date.
This is simply a matter of history that anyone can check out,if they will.
jashmead,
Thanks for your comments dated 05 September 2008 at 1:49. I hope you are not working on the assumption that the "King of the North" is a single individual in the entire chapter 11 and 12 of Daniel. The expression "King of the North" is a generic term like "King of England," "Pharaoh," or "President of the United States."
There were many individuals playing the role of King of the North, and there were several kings with the name Antiochus in Syria, and only one of them was named Antiochus Epiphanes. Besides, Syria was eventually absorbed by the Roman Empire, for which reason most Bible commentators think that Rome became eventually the King of the North. Some scholars believe that Russia will play the role as King of the North at the time of the end.
Assuming that Antiochus Epiphanes is identified with all the references we find for the King of the North in Daniel 11 and 12 would be a glaring anachronism. I do not think that Des Ford would make such a mistake. This means that the problem you see is solved by checking the history of that period.
You may try the following link: "Who is the King of the North?"
http://www.cogwriter.com/kingofthenorth.htm . If you do an Internet search for the "King of the North," you will discover that Bible commentators do not necessarily agree in the way they identify the many references to the King of the North.
Regarding the role of the modern state of Israel in prophecy, please read the 38th and 39th chapters of Ezequiel. Pay special attention to expressions such as "whose poeple were gathered from many nations in the mountains of Israel ... living without walls and without gates and bars."
Daniel the prophet was especially concerned about his Jewish nation, and the Lord revealed what would happen to them in the distant future. Do not assume that the Lord is merely concerned about the sanctuary in heaven and the Christian world. Paul did predict that the Jews would eventually be grafted back as God's people.
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
I just heard from Greg Schneider via email specifically about the PUC situation and think it would have been best not to mention it in our book. We only know one side.
Kevin Ferris wrote: "My father Dave and Uncles Norman and Walter were very conservative and loyal missionaries to the point of no fish on the table when they were jumping everywhere in the water. But their legacy is a continuing yield for the gospel of trawler-net proportions."
Posted by: Kevin Ferris (not verified) | 02 September 2008 at 10:57
Title: Adventist missionary nurse prescribes bottle of brandy. Catholic priest delivers the brandy to SDA mission. Retired missionary builds 6 houses to help fund a church school. (Tom will be happy about that.) Reflections about GV from Mike (rather long – sorry Gill)
Kevin, your Uncle Walter was in charge of the mission on the tiny coral atoll of Aba-ma-ma in Kiribati in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. My sister Margaret and her husband Allen Sonter were teachers fresh from Avondale at Uncle Walter's mission. To feed all of the students, Allen resorted to catching those "jumping fish," because only coconut trees could grow there.
Allen and Margaret tried to eat the fish but their bodies rebelled against it. Their only option was to eat lots of coconut and expired canned and dried foods, because it took so long for provisions to arrive by boat. (The only form of transport to that island.)
When Margaret was expecting her second baby (Wendy), bad weather prevented her trip to a hospital on another island; so your Aunt (Mrs. Ferris) - a trained nurse - assisted Margaret in the delivery.
Mrs. Ferris diagnosed that Margaret would deliver twins and she prescribed bottled oxygen. They found an old full bottle left over from the second world war, and Allen renewed the tubing. When Margaret gave delivery only Wendy appeared but she needed oxygen. Also your aunt prescribed a little brandy because Wendy was very weak. Of course there was none on the SDA mission. So they enquired at the Catholic mission at the other end of the island but the priest was not there at the time. After returning to the SDA mission, the Catholic priest showed up, after walking about 8 miles, to deliver a bottle of brandy to the SDA mission! Wendy was given the brandy and she perked up and was fine.
I have always marvelled at God's providential leadings and even though our forefathers and foremothers have made innocent mistakes (like not making correct diagnosis about twins or not making correct diagnosis about time prophecies), it turned out to "be all right" (as Des Ford heard that voice of reassurance as a young Bible teacher). The baby was born and she grew up to be a beautiful woman. The same applies with our church history. Let’s admit our mistakes and keeping growing to be that beautiful church that others will want to join. Let’s respect each other’s opinions.
Many years later around 1976, the Sonters had Des Ford in their home during his week of prayer at Fulton College in Fiji. Des made a lasting impression on them.
After serving at Pacific Adventist College in Papua New Guinea, they retired in Toowoomba. There, Allen built 6 houses with funds from the conference and the profit gained was donated to help build the church school that Tom has called our attention to. Margaret has had her health food stand at the local market every Sunday morning, and while she used to receive, pack and sell everything by herself, the business has grown so much that they have become distributors of the SDA Sanitarium Foods and a big semi-trailer comes to their house with a container load of products for her market. She now has additional help. All the profit from this has gone to help in the building of a new SDA church in Toowoomba. Soon she will celebrate AU$100,000.00 in money she has been able to give the church.
A couple of nights ago I phoned up Margaret to find out which Ferris she worked with, and I told her about this blog. She quoted Ellen White's statements about "We have many things to learn and many many things to unlearn." The Sonters were there at Avondale College for an alumni meeting back around the year 2000, and someone announced that Des Ford was in the congregation. Everyone stood up and gave Des a "standing ovation." When George Bush went to Australia, the Australian parlament decided not to give GB a standing ovation because Aussies only do that when they consider the person to be very special. (Ask any Aussie for confirmation about how GB was received.)
I hope Kevin, that Elder Jan Paulsen will read this blog, and will understand that people who have given their lives for this church even in their retirement are 100% behind the open letter you wrote to him, and that he will honour your creativity in getting that letter to him, and will make a reply to you a priority. Going to one of Des Ford’s meetings is like attending a concert from a concert pianist. I haven’t had that treat since 1983, although I have been to many piano concerts.
We totally disagree with what Dr. William Johnsson publicly said on the John Ankerburg show that (and I quote word for word): “Desmond Ford’s teachings were tested against the Scriptures. (ah – a slight pause as he thinks of what to say next) The Glacier View group testing him against the scriptures did not see light in his view. It’s out of that context and not against Ellen White.” (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbrQaz7IOS8&feature=related)
I am disappointed that a scholar like Dr. Johnsson could say that publicly when he should know how the document used against Des Ford was produced by scholars with the sincere understanding that it was for the “further study” that Elder Wilson had promised the group in his opening remarks quoted below. “Find out…. what needs more study.”
The church is not just the administrators who feel that they can dominate everyone else. No, the church is composed of the pastors, the teachers and the laity. All need to be in balance, and cultivate mutual respect for each other.
Speaking of mutual respect, Elder Wilson spoke of this same idea as “being partners” between Administrators and Bible teachers at Glacier View from the same Spectrum article quoted above:
“WILSON: I want Des Ford, his wife Gill, and their son Luke to know that we love them very much, and that we appreciate all that he has written. This is, and is not, a Des Ford meeting. Des is not on trial before this group, though some of his views are on trial. He is not a member of this group; he is here to answer questions and to clarify his position.
It will be our endeavor to be fair and open. We will work toward a consensus, but not a majority vote. We need to find out if we do have problems, what is central, and what needs more study. Please be honest and say what you think lest people misunderstand you. Here in this meeting, you will have immunity. We greatly appreciate the work of our Bible scholars on the new Statement of Fundamental Beliefs adopted at Dallas.(Footnote 10 in Cottrell’s Spectrum article). They will be partners of ours in reaching decisions on doctrine.” (The Sanctuary Review Committee.. Spectrum magazine, vol. 11, no. 2 (Nov 1980) ages 2-26)
Did you catch the last thing he said here? “They (the Bible scholars) will be partners of ours in reaching decisions on doctrine.” That sounds exactly like one of Greg Schneider’s comments above. That would be cause for rejoicing indeed! Imagine the feeling of trust and good will the scholars must have had with remarks that would have even given hope to Greg Schneider – the hope that he cried his heart out in his comments above.
Sad to say, Elder Wilson’s idea of being a “partner” “of our Bible scholars” was like the seed that fell by the wayside, as the emotions of administrators blinded their ability to think objectively, and the predominant motto became “the end that justified the means.” Rather than understanding that Des Ford was in harmony with most of the scholars that were present at those meetings, they were blinded by the idea that no one in the church can ever dare to question the “teachings of Sister White” without being disciplined and being made to make a public confession of his errors. It didn’t bother them that the questions Des asked had been discussed by scholars and administrators under closed doors since the early 1960s as supported by the letter of support to Desmond Ford by Elder Harry Lowe that Gill refers to, and the presence of Drs Cottrell, Veltman, Cox, Hammill, Duncan Eva and so many other supporters.
I have two choices: believe Dr. Johnsson’s version of what happened to Des Ford at GV or believe the meticulous short-hand notes of Dr. Raymond Cottrell who wrote down word for word of what he heard at GV. I personally talked with Elder Lowe, and personally heard the forums of Dr. Raymond Cottrell and Dr. Edward Heppenstahl. There is harmony and unity in their reports.
We dishonour the memory of Ellen White by trying to make her an authority for church doctrine. The Bible should be our only authority. What is so good about Ellen White is that she points us to the Bible. “I commend to you this book!”
I will close with one example that Ellen White gave at Avondale College back near the turn of the century that few of us in the church ever apply. I am not saying that we should apply it, but she left us this example, of a vision, and her subsequent counsels. On an Avondale holiday she had a vision of the students playing tennis and cricket and told the Principal of AC that she saw Satan and his evil angels with the students on that day. Her appeal to him was not to quote her vision. She urged him to take his Bible and study the matter for himself. He did that. He spoke with the students. The students accepted his message. He did not depend on Ellen White for his message, even though she had a vision the night before! So why are we now in 2008 quoting her writings and not quoting the Bible?
I hope and pray that all of us in the church will cultivate a genuine partnership between the Bible teachers, Pastors and Laity for the good and growth of the Seventh-day Adventist church.
May God bless us all to this end, and wishing you all a very happy Sabbath,
Mike
P.S. Margaret mentioned that your wife Lorraine is the pianist for the Springbrook SDA church in Brisbane. I just spent 4 days helping to repair a pipe organ here in Santo Domingo where I am the organist in spite of the heavy rains and wind from hurricane Hanna. An organist from Luxemburg bought a new set of pipes to install and we had to remove some old pipes and install new ones. (I will not sermonize on that!) Actually he has connections with Rieger who are planning to come here to Santo Domingo and then on to Port-au-Prince where there is a Rieger organ almost as big as PUC’s wonderful Rieger tracker pipe organ. It’s going to be a great honour for me to assist these great artists. It is a small world! (I did not share about the tapes I received in 1976 in Africa from my Mum while working for 5 years as a self-supporting missionary in Zambia. Those tapes of Des Ford’s were like rain to our dry hearts. I shared them with despairing missionaries at Rusangu mission school - the largest SDA school in the Southern hemisphere. The Bible passages of the apostle Paul in Romans gave us tremendous hope and rest. I found fellowship in sharing the gospel with a United Church of Scotland preacher in Kafue Zambia, who was an admiring of F.F. Bruce, and quite a scholar himself. Our Wildwood team gave a cooking demonstration at his home where he invited all the ladies of his church! Pastor Nelson Palmer convinced the Wildwood trained leaders at Riverside Farm Institute in Zambia to only quote the Bible in our worship services. That was a tremendous leap for them to do! Amazing, considering how much they are dominated by EGW. Pastor Nelson Palmer with his newly wedded wife Betty had lived in a Fijian village for over a year – totally isolated from the modern world – living in a grass hut and living with the people. They raised up an SDA church there, and they were setting up a ministerial training course in Zambia to train pastors. The Zambia Union President – Henry Morray (spelling?) was so refreshing to be around – so positive and full of genuine love and humour. We need to return to those times! Pastor Nelson Palmer made the comment to me back then that Pastor Smuts Van Rooyen was the clearest presenter of the gospel that he had ever heard. I agreed with him.
Nic,
I quoted a specific passage that is clearly linked to Daniel 8:14. The specific reference describes the king of the north desecrating the temple. Daniel 11 follows the pattern of chapters 7 and 8. Chapter 11 provides greater detail. If you reread my post you will find that the sanctuary is desecrated and the daily abolished by the king of the north. These events are also described in chapter 8 of daniel. Dr. Ford and others maintain that the primary fulfillment of the little horn in Antiochus Epiphanes. The sequence of events in chapter 11 following the desecration of the sanctuary and the removal of the daily raised serious questions about this designation. There is no evidence to support a 2nd century resurrection of the saints to eternal life. That is the concluding thought in chapter 12 of the book of Daniel.
There are only a few verses between the desecration of the sanctuary and removal of the daily until the resurrection to eternal life. To suggest that there are thousands of years separating these events is to simply ignore the text.
Nic
I am sorry I didh't acknowledge your post about your father
earlier. Those are precious memories aren't they? Tom
jashmead,
Here is an article by someone who took the trouble of explaining how the major portion of Daniel 11 was met with historical fulfillment. I believe that this represents the original fulfillment of these predictions. Most Bible scholars agree that especially verse 31, had multiple applications throughout history.
You stated the following: "There are only a few verses between the desecration of the sanctuary and removal of the daily until the resurrection to eternal life. To suggest that there are thousands of years separating these events is to simply ignore the text."
Actually there are seventeen verses between those two events, and in biblical prophecy seventeen verses can cover long periods of actual time. I think that you missed what the angel told Daniel regarding the time that would elapse between certain events predicted there:
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1290 days." [Daniel 12:11] Adventists have traditionally interpreted those 1290 days as 1290 years. If you accept this, then how can you say that those "few verses" represent a short time?
*********
Who is the King of the North?
By COGwriter
In the Book of Daniel there is a chapter about someone identified as the "King of the North". Nearly all Bible scholars recognize that certain prophecies associated with the King of the North have been fulfilled historically.
The question is, will there be a future King of the North? And if so, who is he?
This article will look at many of the verses in the 11th chapter of the Book of Daniel, commentary by Herbert W. Armstrong, Roman Catholic prophecies, and the Bible to attempt to determine who any future King of the North may be.
Who Was the King of the North?
Here are many quotes to Daniel chapter 11 from the booklet, "The Middle East in Prophecy", 1972 edition by Herbert W. Armstrong that basically agree with many non-Church of God theologians and commentators:
The "King of the North" and the "King of the South"
The first verse of the 11th chapter is a continuation from the last verse of the 10th chapter. The angel says to Daniel, "Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will" (Dan. 11:2-3).
Actually there were 12 more kings in the Persian Empire, but only the first four following Cyrus were of importance for the purpose of this prophecy. They were Cambyses, pseudo-Smerdis, Darius and Xerxes. It was the last, or Xerxes, who was the richest of all and stirred up war with Greece.
Then King Philip of Macedonia planned a great war to conquer the Persian Empire, with an army made up mostly of Grecians. He died before the plans were completed. But his son, Alexander the Great, took over his plans, and invaded Persia. He met the Persian army at the Battle of Issus, 333 B.C. (Dan. 8:2, 5-6). Then he swept down into Egypt, and then to a final crushing defeat of the Persian Empire at the Battle of Arbella, 331 B.C., after which Alexander marched on a conquest clear to India, sweeping all before him.
Notice now verse 4 of the prophecy: "And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those."
How marvelously — how accurately — that came to pass. We quote from one of the authoritative English-language histories published in the last century, A Manual of Ancient History (Student Series) by Rawlinson: "Cut off unexpectedly in the vigor of early manhood [the 33rd year of his age, June, 323 B.C.], he [Alexander] left no inheritor, either of his power or of his projects" (p. 237). The Empire was left leaderless and in confusion, but out of this emerged, by the year 301 B.C., four divisions, just as prophesied, as a result of a division of the Empire into four divisions by Alexander's generals. They were:
1. Ptolemy (Soter), ruling Egypt, part of Syria and Judea.
2. Seleucus (Nicator), ruling Syria, Babylonia and territory east to India.
3. Lysimachus, ruling Asia Minor.
4. Cassander, ruling Greece and Macedonia.
Thus was the prophecy of verse 4 fulfilled to the letter.
Now notice what follows. From here the prophecy foretells the activities only of two of these four divisions: Egypt, called "king of the south," because it is south of Jerusalem; and the Syrian kingdom, the king of the north, just north of Judea. It is because the Holy Land passed back and forth between those two divisions, and because their different wars were principally over possession of Judea, that the prophecy is concerned with them. Here is verse 5:
"And the king of the south [Egypt] shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion." In history, we learn that the original Ptolemy I, called Soter, became strong and powerful, developing Egypt beyond the greatest dreams of Alexander. One of his princes, or generals, Seleucus Nicator, also became strong and powerful. And, in 312 B.C., taking advantage of Ptolemy's being tied up in a war, he established himself in Syria, and assumed the diadem as king.
Verse 6 says, "And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement [margin, "rights" or "equitable conditions," or "marriage union"]: but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times."
Fulfilled to the Letter!
At the end of 50 years, this occurred exactly as described!
Syria's ruler, the king of the north, at this time was Antiochus II, called Theos. His wife was named Laodice. And, says Rawlinson's Ancient History, page 251, "Her influence ... engaged him in a war with Ptolemy Philadelphus [king of the south], B.C. 260, which is terminated, B.C. 252, by a marriage between Antiochus and Bernice, Ptolemy's daughter."
The prophecy says "he that begat her" shall be given up. Also that she shall not retain the power of the arm, neither shall the king of the north, whom she married, stand. All three are to come to their end. Notice how accurately this came to pass.
Says Rawlinson's History, pages 251 and 252: "On the death of Philadelphus [he that begat her], B.C. 247, Antiochus repudiated Bernice, and took back his former wife, Laodice, who, however, doubtful of his constancy, murdered him to secure the throne for her son Seleucus (II) B.C. 246 ... Bernice ... had been put to death by Laodice."
Nowhere in all the Bible is there so literal a prophecy, giving so many details of future history. And to read an ancient history of these kingdoms is simply to see unfolded before your eyes, step by step, verse by verse, this marvelous prophecy. There can be no doubt of its right application!
The Holy Land Changes Hands
Next let us notice verse 7: "But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his estate [margin, "in his office"], which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail."
"Out of a branch," or "shoot," of her roots. Her parents were her roots. Hence, this must be her brother, who next should occupy the throne of king of the south and fulfill this prophecy. Now listen to this accurate fulfillment, quoted word for word from the same page of Rawlinson's work (p. 252):
"Ptolemy Euergetes [the III, eldest son of Philadelphus (p. 272) and therefore Bernice's brother, a branch of her roots] invaded Syria, B.C. 245, to avenge the murder of his sister, Bernice ... .In the war which followed, he carried everything before him."
The eighth verse of Daniel 11 says this king of the south would carry captives and vessels of silver and gold into Egypt, and continue to reign more years than the king of the north, who at that time was Seleucus II, and verse 9 says he shall return into Egypt. As verse 7 said he should "enter into the fortress of the king of the north," Ptolemy III did seize the fortress of Syria, Seleucia, the port of Antioch, capital of the kingdom! Then he carried back to Egypt immense booty and 2,500 molten images and idolatrous vessels which, in 526 B.C. Cambyses had carried away from Egypt. He continued to rule until 222 B.C., while the king of the north, Seleucus II, died in 226 B.C.
When he died, his two sons took over the kingdom of the north; first Seleucus III, 226-223 B.C., who ruled only three years, and then his brother Antiochus III, called "the Great," 223-187 B.C. Both of these two sons of Seleucus II assembled immense forces to war against Egypt, avenge their father, and recover their port and fortress, Seleucia.
And this was accurately prophesied in verse 10: "But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return and be stirred up [margin, "be stirred up again"], even to his fortress."
"And," continues verse 11, "the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand."
In fulfillment of the latter part of verse 10, Antiochus the Great, after 27 years, recovered his fortress, Seleucia, and he also conquered the territory of Syria, as far as Gaza, including Judea. But the young Egyptian king, now Ptolemy IV (Philopater), was roused, and with an army of 20,000 inflicted severe defeat on Antiochus the Great; and fulfilling verse 12, he killed tens of thousands and again annexed Judea to Egypt. But he was not strengthened, for he made a rash and speedy peace with Antiochus, and returned to dissipation, throwing away the fruits of victory. Says verse 12, "And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it."
"For," as verse 13 continues, "the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches." It was "after certain years," or 12 years later, 205 B.C., that Ptolemy Philopator died, leaving his throne to an infant son, Ptolemy Epiphanes. Then Antiochus assembled a greater army, and won great victories.
He then made a treaty allying Philip of Macedonia with him, and others, against Egypt, and they wrested Phoenicia and southern Syria from the king of the south. In this they were assisted by some of the Jews. Josephus' Jewish history says many Jews helped Antiochus. But notice how accurately Almighty God had foretold this, hundreds of years before it happened! —
"And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall" (v. 14).
Read It in Your Own Bible!
To save space, the reader is asked from this point to read each verse of the prophecy from his own Bible, thus saving us reprinting the prophecy in full here. We give here only the facts in history.
Verses 15-16 — "the glorious land," of course, refers to Judea, the Holy Land. Antiochus the Great besieged and took Sidon from Egypt, ruined the interests of Egypt in Judea at the Battle of Mount Panium, 198 B.C., and then Antiochus took possession of Judea.
Verse 17 — "upright ones" (see margin) in Hebrew means "equal conditions, or marriage," but the one he marries will not stand on his side. In 198 B.C., Antiochus arranged a marriage between his daughter, Cleopatra (not the Cleopatra of 31 B.C. in Egypt) and young Ptolemy Epiphanes, king of the south, by which he hoped subtly to gain complete possession of Egypt; but the plan failed.
Says Rawlinson, page 254, "Coele-Syria and Palestine promised as a dowry, but not delivered." Cleopatra did not truly stand on the side of Antiochus, for it was only a trick to gain possession of Egypt.
Verse 18 — and so Antiochus turned his attention in another direction and tried to conquer, 197 to 196 B.C., the islands and coasts of Asia Minor. But the Roman general, Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, utterly defeated him at the Battle of Magnesia, 190 B.C.
Verse 19 — Antiochus next turned his attention to the fortresses of his own land, in the east and west. But, attempting to recruit his dissipated wealth by the plunder of the Oriental Temple of Belus, in Elymais, he was killed, 187 B.C.
Verse 20 — Seleucus IV Philopator (187-176), his son, in an effort to raise money, sent a tax collector, Heliodorus, through Judea. But he reigned only 11 years, when Heliodorus poisoned him.
Verse 21 — he left no heir. But his brother, a younger son of Antiochus the Great, named Epiphanes (Antiochus IV), a contemptible reprobate, came by surprise and through flattery took the kingdom. To his aid came his assistant, Eumenes. Rawlinson says, page 255, "Antiochus [Epiphanes], assisted by Eumenes, drives out Heliodorus, and obtains the throne, B.C. 176. He astonishes his subjects by an affectation of Roman manners" and "good-natured profuseness [flattery]."
Antiochus Epiphanes
Verse 22 — "the prince of the covenant" does not refer to Christ. This was the attempt of Antiochus to replace the Jewish high priest by another who would be subservient to him.
Verses 23-24 — although only a few were with him at first, yet by this "Roman manner," by deceit and flattery, he crept into power and prospered. He also invaded Galilee and Lower Egypt. His fathers, the former kings of Syria, had favored the Jews, but says Rawlinson, page 255, they "were driven to desperation by the mad project of this self-willed monarch."
Verse 25 — Rawlinson, pages 255-256, says, "Threatened with war by the ministers of Ptolemy Philometor [now king of the south], who claim Coele-Syria and Palestine as the dowry of Cleopatra, the late queen-mother, Antiochus marches against Egypt ... B.C. 171" (pp. 277-278). But he was met by his nephew, Ptolemy Philometor, king of the south, with another immense army. But the Egyptian king was defeated through the treachery of his own officers and was outwitted by Antiochus.
Verses 26-27 — continuing in Rawlinson, page 278: "After his victory at Pelusium, Antiochus advanced to Memphis, and having obtained possession of the young king's person [Ptolemy Philometor, king of the south], endeavored to use him as a tool for effecting the entire reduction of the country." In 174 B.C., the uncle of the king of the south sat at a banquet. Antiochus pretended to ally himself with the young Ptolemy, against his brother, Euergetes II, but each was trying to deceive the other.
The Abomination of Desolation
Verse 28 — in 168 B.C., returning from Egypt with great plunder, Antiochus set himself against the Jews, massacred many, and then returned to Antioch with golden vessels from the Temple at Jerusalem.
Verse 29 — the same year, he again invaded Egypt, but with none of his former success, because Philometor, king of the south, got help from Rome.
Verse 30 — the Roman fleet came against Antiochus, he was forced to surrender to the terms of Popillius, commander of the Roman fleet, and retire from Egypt and restore Cyprus to Egypt. Returning through Judea, smarting under the defeat, he vented his exasperation against the Jews, and extended special favors to those Jews who would turn from their religion.
Verse 31 — then, 167 B.C., the next year, came the climax of the horror. Antiochus sent troops to the Holy Land, who desecrated the Temple and sanctuary, abolished the daily sacrifice (see also Daniel 8:11, 24) and (Kislev 15, Hebrew calendar) placed the abomination — an image — on the altar in the Temple precincts, making it desolate (Rawlinson, p. 255). Many who claim to teach the Bible try to apply the prophecy of this verse to Moslems in the 7th century A.D., building the Dome of the Rock on the supposed site of the ancient Temple at Jerusalem! But every verse of this prophecy, step by step, verse by verse, unfolded in actual history, just as here recounted, so there can be not the slightest shadow of doubt as to this abomination that "maketh desolate" — it was an idol set up in 167 B.C., by Antiochus Epiphanes.
http://www.cogwriter.com/kingofthenorth.htm .
*********
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
In the aftermath of Glacier View, the General Conference sent Jan Paulsen and Walter Scragg on a mission to the Northern European Division to contain any fallout from the defrocking of Des Ford. I imagine similar teams were deployed in in the other world divisions.
In Norway a meeting was convened for the church "workers." Curiously, the meeting was held in English, presumably for the benefit of Scragg, but I suspect the real reason was to limit people's understanding of the issue at hand. All the younger pastors, trained at Newbold, had no problems understanding English, but many of the older ones struggled, and certainly could not express themselves well in the language.
When they opened up for questions, I got up and proceeded to ask my question in Norwegian to make sure people understood what the question was. I was immedidately told I couldn't do that, so I proceeded in English.
In his presentation Dr Paulson (the rare administrator with top-notch scholarly credentials) had criticized Des Ford for being fixated on 1844, a subject with which the bible was not much concerned. My question to him was: When Ford focuses so much on 1844, it's because EGW makes so much out of it. Are you saying she was wrong in doing that?
Paulsen replied that obviously EGW was "a child of her times." He did not go beyond that but at that time, in the early fall of 1980, he sounded like Dave Larson today, wondering why 1844 was worth all the fuss.
Paulson had a front seat at Glacier View. I have a standing invitation from him to stop by his office for a chat. I would love to sit down with him--after he retires--and find out what happened behind the curtains back then.
Re Jan Paulson's comments, mentioned above:
In my notes, I found a specific reference to the 1980 meeting and what Dr Paulson argued in his presentation. In it he stated that the bible is uninterested in the issue of when the antitypical Day of Atonement started, as well as any issue about when Jesus entered the Most Holy Place.
I don't think Des Ford could have agreed more.
We always want to see what is inside the box before Christmas or a birthday. Sometimes we guess right and sometimes we guess wrong.
Theology is like that. We have the plain word of Jesus Christ, It is finished! We are living between the inaugural eschaton and the consummate eschaton. We are impatient as on a Christmas morning.
Instead of combing Daniel and Revelation, let us rejoice in the Gospel of John, Romans, Ephesians, and if you are still curious about the Hebrews read the Epistle to the Hebrews or read. Luke or John in which Jesus is painted as the consummate Isrealite.
I don't know the end from the beginning, but I know who does! I am willing to let Him play it out to the end of time. Awake or asleep, I know He is in charge and that He will keep that which I have committed to Him.
Even so come, Lord Jesus. Tom
Aage Rendalen wrote: "Paulsen replied that obviously EGW was "a child of her times." He did not go beyond that but at that time, in the early fall of 1980, he sounded like Dave Larson today, wondering why 1844 was worth all the fuss.
Paulson had a front seat at Glacier View. I have a standing invitation from him to stop by his office for a chat. I would love to sit down with him--after he retires--and find out what happened behind the curtains back then.
Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 06 September 2008 at 6:20"
Hello Aage,
I am confused by what your report of Elder Jan Paulsen and what he wrote in the Adventist Review quoted below:
"Some are suggesting that since the 1980 (Glacier View) meetings, the very teachings that the church affirmed that year at those meetings have been abandoned, and that the church has essentially moved to accept the very positions it rejected then. Such a claim is a distortion of reality, and nothing could be further from the truth. The historic sanctuary message, based on Scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White, continues to be held to unequivocally. And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based, namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church place all matters of faith and conduct. Let no one think that there has been a change of position in regard to this." Adventist Review supplement June 13, 2002.
Also why wait until he retires? Shouldn't he come forward with the truth now? 40% of the Australian SDA church workforce was lost over these issues. They left and very few showed any pastoral concern except Des and Gill Ford.
Mike
All I know is what he said at that meeting in 1980. I doubt Dr Paulsen's personal beliefs have changed, but now he is the head of an organization and it is his job to articulate its official position. I fear we shall have to wait until he retires before there's any hope that he will talk about his own views.
Some of you have seen the interview with Review editor William Johnson on the John Ankerberg show in 1982 (I believe). Here is a little bit of background which explains why it turned into such an unmitigated disaster.
In the aftermath of the dismissal of Walter Rae and Desmond Ford, a behind-the-scenes insurgency was taking place. Documents and memos challenging the official positions and actions of the SDA church were spread through a network of sympathizers. (No web back in those days.)
When word began circulating about plans to feature a representative of the SDA church on the Ankerberg show, the host, John Ankerberg and especially his guest, Walter Martin, were inundated with up-to-date documents about the recent conflict within the church. (In the interview I recognized a question that I had submitted to Bob Spangler at a meeting in Birmhingham, Alabama around 1982--a question read out, and hence was on a tape of the session.)
Walter Martin, the renowned vampire hunter and inquisitor of American fundamentalism, had for some time especially been the recipient of documents that cast serious doubt upon the commitment of the official SDA church to the verities they had affirmed in their conversations with him and Barnhouse in the mid 50s.
When William Johnson walked onto that stage in Tennessee, he walked into a set-up. He obviously had no idea about well informed Ankerberg and Martin were. Johnson was (is) an honorable man, who had an impossible job. He no doubt identified with the positions articulated in QOD but in this interview he was blasted by buckshot fired by a host of loose canons on the SDA deck, which included Neal Wilson (whose reign is possibly the greatest misfortune to befall the SDA church), at least in modern times.
Aage,
Your comments dated 06 September 2008 at 10:10 reflect human nature. You said:
*********
"All I know is what he said at that meeting in 1980. I doubt Dr Paulsen's personal beliefs have changed, but now he is the head of an organization and it is his job to articulate its official position. I fear we shall have to wait until he retires before there's any hope that he will talk about his own views."
*********
Your comments remind me of an exchange which took place at a Sabbath School in Loma Linda some years ago between Richard Hammill--retired at the time--and one of his Andrews University former students. After presenting his liberal views about the first chapter of Genesis, one of his former students asked him the following probing question:
"Dr. Hammill: I never heard you say these things when you were the president of Andrews University." To which Hammill responded: "I did not want to rock the boat." Of course, he was now retired, and could be frank about his true views dealing with creation.
Tom,
Yes, indeed!
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
Aage, Shouldn't all of us at the next General Conference session apologize to each other for all of these wrongs? I freely admit that there were and are mistakes on all sides. Could Elder Paulsen follow the example of Pope Benedict in confessing the wrongs that SDA church leaders have done, as well as laymen apologizing to the church for being critical of the church leaders?
just heard a sermon on the sanctuary - 1844 - with some reference to IJ this morning in the Village Church in Berrien Springs
Nic, your recitation of history with all the details was most interesting.
However, considering that most biblical scholars agree that Daniel was not written until AFTER the events you describe, and even the Hebrews who gave us those texts also give the most likely date as ca. 160 B.C., to call it "prophetic" is only a fundamentalist's position, unsupported by any substantive evidence. Prophecy, of the kind Daniel has been claimed by SDAs, was to foretell the future; however, accounting and writing of past events can never be called "prophecy" unless that term is defined much differently. Even the SDA Bible Dictionary admits that the earlier date of 600-500 B.C. is not absolutely assured.
Mike
Obviously fault can be found with all participants in this drama but apologize to Neal Wilson is taking it too far. This was a struggle for the soul of Adventism, a struggle between those that had power and those who did not. The victims were all on one side. If apologies are due, they should benefit the victims.
Most of the victims were resourceful and intelligent people and most of them landed on their feet, eventually. And some victims of the purge before and after GV even benefited from it. Ronald Numbers, for instance, was fired only to become one of America's most respected historians in his field. Others were, as Greg Schneider points out, fired up the salary ladder by being offered less exposed positions in the health care system.
The real loser was the Adventist church. All the excitement went out of Adventism. The scholars were sidelined, if not downright emasculated, and intellectual decline set in.
I have been out of the church for nearly 30 years, but what exciting things have happened in these years? Some new Amazonian tribe has learned about the dark day of 1780? A remote village in New Guinea has stopped eating pork? Ok, I'm a bit cynical.
Today's Adventist church, in the first world, to this outside observer resembles Gorbachev's Soviet Union--an entity with clay feet struggling with the concept of reform and openness. The Soviet Union eventually collapsed. Adventism outside the third world is headed in the same direction.
Yes, an apology is in order but I frankly don't care if I get one or not. The apology should be for what could have been, for the damage that the General Conference (primarily) inflicted on this church.
I know Dave is on vacation, but the burning question remains:
Can a person hold a top administrative position in an institution with a published set of beliefs and privately hold another set of beliefs and be ethical by any measure?
Somewhere it is written: "Thou shalt not bear false witness!"
Since the great argument is about a forsenic cosmic problem, shouldn't the question be asked of its proponents? Tom
This issue reminds me of some of my stalwart Hebrew student friends. When faced with a generous portion of ham, they would say: "That is some of the best looking corn beef I ever saw!" Tom
Elaine
The reason why the last part of Dan 11 and 12 seem so mysterious is that these are the "prophetic" parts of the book, about which the writer only had his own imagination to draw upon. The other chapters, as you point out, restate historical facts as futuristic prophecy, and it's easy to follow the prophetic narrative, as long as the historical record is available.
Or does anyone want a crack at the 1290 and 1335 days of Dan 12? And maybe at the same time, explain why these time prophecies can safely be ignored while the 2300 days of Dan 8:14 are vital?
those who say the daniel's book was written 167.b.c.do this
because they do not want to believe god could actually
predict the future.then i ask that some ones read the
book which one not adventist has written which is
called;evidence that demands a veridict,who knows after to
read this book the daniel's book become trusting.
laercio
the book was written by the josh mcdowell
those who say the daniel's book was written 167.b.c.do this
because they do not want to believe god could actually
predict the future.then i ask that some ones read the
book which one not adventist has written which is
called;evidence that demands a veridict,who knows after to
read this book the daniel's book become trusting.
laercio
the book was written by the josh mcdowell
The response to this blog have been amazing, and I have already responded once. I would like to respond again but this time in regards to discussion of 1844/IJ. While much of the discussion above has dealt with its biblical basis, I would like to take a more historical-sociological approach. My source is "Sketches of the Christian Life and Public Labors of William Miller", by James White, 1875. You can download the entire book from www.earlysda.com The webmaster went to great lengths to type in the entire book online in the attempt to preserve early Adventist history. After reading sections of the book and reading between the lines, I came up with the following:
1. There was not one "Great Disappointment" but at least three "Great Disappointments"
2. William Miller believed "no man knows the day or the hour", and set the time for the cleansing of the sanctuary to occur between the Spring of 1843 and 1844. When nothing happened, he pulled himself away from the movement for awhile. 1st Great Disappointment.
3. When Samuel Snow recalculated the cleansing of the Sanctuary to Oct 22, 1844 William Miller wanted nothing to do with it until only a few weeks before (Oct 6th, 1844). Miller changed his mind because felt that so many people were joining the movement that "it must be from the Holy Spirit".
4. When Oct 22 passed, Miller felt terrible, again, and I am sure doubly embarassed. He and his followers were ridiculed mercilessly. 2nd Great Disappointment.
5. In a reaction to the scorn and contempt by the public, many of the followers who still hung on to the hope, created a face-saving idea called the Shut Door theory, essentially saying, we may have been wrong on the event, but we were not wrong about God judging His people, hence we will be saved, and you are all lost.
6. The shut door theory soon faded away. Miller was asked about it and stayed very non-commital. 3rd Great Disappointment.
7. The seeds of Adventism grabbed what was left, and revised the shut door theory changing it from the past tense to the present tense, a "shutting door" theory, ie Investigative Judgement. Saving a sense of urgency, but avoiding any dates, and giving renewed hope to the few who remained.
William Miller died 5 years after 1844, I believe a broken and depressed man. One can only imagine how many family were divided, fields left fallow, and business closed based on his exhortations. William Miller also never believed on the third angels message.
I am tempted to feel, in light of the above, that the biblical wrangling regarding day-year, etc...is somewhat of a mute issue.
I would be interested in any comments on what other think.
the problems are at the people and not at daniel's book.
the problem was in the interpretation wronged which mr miller
has made over daniel.when i reached adventist the church i was
taugth who mark of beast was the credit card or card of the bank.because had all informations about me;then the papa
would find my self very fast when shoild come the persecution.
the interpretation is wronged not the book,i did not
loose my faith at the church nor in god because some one interpreted the bible wronged.
laercio
Don,
Thank you for sharing this very interesting information. The only problem I have, is with your description in your Point 7: "7. The seeds of Adventism grabbed what was left, and revised the shut door theory changing it from the past tense to the present tense, a "shutting door" theory, ie Investigative Judgement. Saving a sense of urgency, but avoiding any dates, and giving renewed hope to the few who remained."
Are you suggesting that you believe that the "shutting door" began on October 22, 1844? Or are you just recounting Adventist history? Anyway, I can't see how believing this avoids "any dates" as you suggest.
The preadvent concept avoids dates altogether, and that's what I believe the Bible teaches. Arlin Baldwin expressed the following above in his blog:
"The Biblical PreAdvent judgment teaches nothing whatsoever about time-setting either the Advent or the Judgment. In fact, Jesus Himself told His disciples 'It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power.' (See Acts 1:6-8; Mark 13: 14, 32 KJV and John 14:26 RSV. See also Matt. 24:36 RSV.)
Miller's unbiblical time-setting theory is what resulted in the date Oct. 22, 1844 and eventually the later SDA IJ doctrine which was basically a reinterpretation of the Great Disappointment on that date.
This is simply a matter of history that anyone can check out, if they will."
Posted by: Arlin Baldwin (not verified) | 05 September 2008 at 9:03
Once upon a time, I regularly attended Walter Martin's Sunday-School class in Costa Mesa, California. In private conversation, he asked me if I thought he had been too hard on William Johnson on the John Ankerberg Show?! I politely answered, 'no'. He said that he thought the church leaders were defending 1844/IJ because they were afraid of losing the 'whole thing'. He didn't have a problem with SDA's attending church on Saturday(he thought any day would be fine), but his problem was that SDA's had made such a big deal about it.
Mike: I love Reiger pipe-organs, and I am a tracker-backer. Especially when they are located high in the rear balcony of an acoustically live and reverberant church.
In this prophetic discussion...what about Richard Rice and 'The Openness of God'? When we speak of prophecy, are we implying absolute fore-knowledge? If so...doesn't freedom go out the window? Why do we have to play numbers games?
Hi Orthodoxymoron,
Regarding Walter Martin: that's interesting what Walter Martin told you. The treatment Dr. Johnnson received was not as hard as some of the so-called heretics were treated where Adventist pastors could not save face nor their jobs! (for something one of the Administrators of the church said really wasn't an issue anyway!)
Feliz Semana,
Mike
P.S. The Rieger pipe organ in Port-au-Prince Haiti is located on a very high balcony. It's a 3 manual - 44 stops and can function without electricity. I almost cried when their organist jumped to the bellows during a blackout, and made super-human efforts to keep it going for the entire service for me to play. After the service, there wasn't a dry spot on his shirt. The problem he has is that no one will work that hard to pump the bellows for him! It is located in Holy Trinity Cathedral. The acoustics are superb in that cathedral. It was installed in 1962. Acoustically it sounds better to me than the one at PUC. Let me know if you would like me to send you some photos of it.
Don
You say:"6. The shut door theory soon faded away. Miller was asked about it and stayed very non-commital. 3rd Great Disappointment."
I find this hard to believe. Do you have a source for it? Below you'll find a direct statement in which he contradicts your information.
In 1845 William Miller wrote his "Apology and Defense", published by Joshua V. Himes, in which he talks about groups of advent die-hards, such as the one to which Joseph Turner and Ellen Harmon belonged:
"Some are disposed to lay a stress on the seventh month movement which is not warranted by the Word. There was then a dedication of heart in view of the Lord's coming, that was well pleasing in the sight of God. Desire for the Lord's coming and a preparation for that event are acceptable to him. But because we then ardently desired his coming, and sought that preparation that was necessary, it does not follow that our expectations were then realized. For we were certainly disappointed. We expected the personal coming of Christ at that time; and now to contend that we were not mistaken, is dishonest. We should never be ashamed to frankly confess our errors.
"I have no confidence in any of the new theories that have grown out of that movement, viz. that Christ then came as the Bridegroom, that the door of mercy was closed, that there is no salvation for sinners, that the seventh trumpet then sounded, or that it was a fulfilment of prophecy in any sense. The spirit of fanaticism which has resulted from, in some places, leading to extravagance and excess, I regard as of the same nature as those which retarded the reformation in Germany..." pp 28-29.
In defeat Miller showed a maturity of character and mind that seemed all but absent during his long apocalyptic crusade. In Portland this was a long time in coming.
Mike: I found a picture of the organ(it's beautiful and well located), and the following description: The Organ in the western choir gallery, completed in 1961. It is a tracker instrument of three manuals and four divisions. The console is positioned between the Positif mounted over the gallery rail (lower manual), and the Grand Orgue (Great division, second manual) and Choeur (Choir division, third manual) which stand against the west wall. The Pedale division flanks the gallery on each side. A foot-activated bellows permits playing during power outages. The panels which enclose the Positif and the Grande Orgue divisions are painted by Jasmin Joseph. The floral design of the Pedale division was painted by Adam Leontus, completed in 1963.
Acoustics are much more important than the organ. PUC Reiger + Grace Cathedral = Paradise! I love the Casavant at LLU and the Reiger at PUC...but the architechture and acoustics are mediocre, at best. Someday...
I am really torn between the desire to see the teachings of Jesus, with no churches(the teachings infused into all of society, but not formalized into the confines of buildings, and ruled with ecclesiastical authority)...and my love of cathedral pipe-organs and choirs, with pomp and circumstace. Read Great Controversy pg. 566(Liberty of Conscience Threatened). Can 'big-church' exist without corruption, abuse, and atrocity?
I sometimes wonder if making music is more productive than fighting about theology?! No matter how hard we try...we never seem to really get it right, or are able to agree on much of anything for any length of time.
Hi Orthodoxymoron,
Thanks for the up-date, and insights.
Regarding making music: it's said that music is the universal language. If any one has a poem, I have a very talented Dominican musician friend who is now teaching at a university in Virginia. He is an excellent composer. His name is Rafael Scarfullery. (You can find him easily on a Google search with his utube presentations. He is also an excellent organist although his primary instrument is the classical guitar. He is a good SDA too.)
Regarding church buildings: Personally I love having worship services in nature, and I think that we should get as close as possible to that. I would love to see a church built here in Santo Domingo like they do in some of tourist hotels - made of native materials with the big tall roofs, and have flowers and small bushes on the sides with long overhangs to stop the rain entering (with emergency roll-down tarps for severe weather).
Regarding the photos: please send me the link. We did send some to Rieger a couple of years ago. They may be the same ones or could be some others that some tourist (a rare animal now in Haiti) took. The Caville-Col Organ in the Notredam Cathedral in Port-au-Prince was unfortunately bashed to pieces by an angry mob wanting to pay back the church for giving refuge to Ton-ton Macoutes during one of the uprisings. I got the shock of my life when going up to that very high balcony through all of the locked doors to see their organ, and found the inside parts totally destroyed. Many of the pipes are still standing, and we plan to take Rieger there to investigate some possibilities of restoring it.
Cheers,
Mike
If one does not believe in the IJ, can one still be an Adventist?
While I know a variety of opinions exist from "absolutely not" to "one can worship with any believers," I'm wondering if the umbrella of the church remains open to those who have huge questions about this.
Or should conscience dictate that we leave and find fellowship elsewhere--with Presbyterians, Methodists, and other believers to put the Gospel as the priority belief--grace through Christ?
Is one "cheating" by being employed by, participating in, and/or attending the Adventist Church and not believing in the IJ? Is it a sign of courage to stay? To go? Is it disrespectful to Des Ford to stay if one believes the same as he?
Mike,
The suggestion you made on 06 September 2008 at 11:36 is a good one, nevertheless human nature tends to avoid the ideal. Yesterday, in the question and anwer period that followed Dr. Ford's presentation, someone asked whether the church had ever apologized to him for the way he was treated at Glacier View. He responded that it would be nice if that would take place, and mentioned how the Catholic Church had apologized for the sins of the past. One of the panelists reminded Dr. Ford that it had taken 300 years for the Catholic Church to do so.
Elaine,
I read your comments dated on 06 September 2008 at 1:51. I agree with you that prophecy must have been written before the events. You state that most biblical scholars agree that the Septuagint translation was done in 160 B.C. Have you verified this as factual? You may know Dr. Bernard Taylor. He is one of the translators of the recently publishned new English version of the Septuagint. I have been attenting his Sabbath School for many years, and we spent several months reviewing his translation, and I do not recall his ever questioning the date of the LXX translation. I always thought that the following statement was correct:
*********
"Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC." [ http://www.septuagint.net/ ]
*********
If the above assertion is correct, then it would follow that Daniel was a prophecy.
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
Arlin,
Thanks for you response. You said:
"The only problem I have, is with your description in your Point 7: "7. The seeds of Adventism grabbed what was left, and revised the shut door theory changing it from the past tense to the present tense, a "shutting door" theory,..."
Are you suggesting that you believe that the "shutting door" began on October 22, 1844? Or are you just recounting Adventist history?
I believe there were a number of years between the shut door theory and eventual doctrine of the IJ as we traditionally understand it today. I am looking at this from a view of history and it's progression in light of the sociological pressures (being wrong about events, ridiculed by people, etc...) the movement experienced. It appears to me that these pressures had far more to do in defining the doctrine, than perhaps scripture was ever trying to tell us.
It reminds me of when the IRS in the 1970's threaten to remove the non-profit tax-exempt status of the Mormon church if they didn't end their racist practice of excluding African-Americans, and then soon there after one of their leaders had a "vision from God" telling them it was OK to accept them. While the latter came from overt pressure from the federal government, the former was "molded" far more by societal pressure than scripture -perhaps more than we want to admit. From my understanding, the current traditional view was really the fourth interpretation of events.
Aage wrote:
You quoted me as stating:"6. The shut door theory soon faded away. Miller was asked about it and stayed very non-commital. 3rd Great Disappointment." Your response was: "I find this hard to believe. Do you have a source for it? Below you'll find a direct statement in which he contradicts your information"
I agree, W. Miller does show a maturity regarding the disappointments and the fanatical elements that arose afterwards. The source I used was already mentioned in previous post. Maturity involves growth, and earlier to this, WM was vague on where he stood on the position. James White wrote:
"The editors of the Advent Herald replied to Mr. Miller's arguments, and contended that probation only terminated with the personal coming of Christ. His letter, as published, gave little satisfaction to either party. Both claimed him."
Shortly after this, WM did reject the shut door. My source didn't have the quotation you used. Thanks for sharing this. What is interesting in all this, is that WM himself never accepted the current view of the IJ, which I grew up always attributing to him. I sense he was done putting his neck on the line so to speak.
And while we find ourselves wanting to clarify and discuss our early history, the significance of the IJ with the current young people in our church is almost irrelevant as surveyed in the Valuegenesis 2 project headed up by Bailey Gillespie at La Sierra University. While the IJ was very relevant to the early Advent movement in giving them focus and purpose, how relevant is it to us today? One may ask how relevant should it be?
And to answer PLM: You asked how:
"If one does not believe in the IJ, can one still be an Adventist?...I'm wondering if the umbrella of the church remains open to those who have huge questions about this." I can appreciate your question. If you truly don't believe in something, then you need to follow your conscience and be honest with yourself and your church. However, as this blog is all about, never throw the baby out with the bathwater! I don't think the IJ is going to be much of an issue with anyone 45 or younger. Even with the retired preacher we recently had at our church, his view of the IJ was significantly different, and more "relevant", than the traditional interpretation.
Someone asked the question: If you don't believe in the IJ can you still be a SDA?" The answer seems to be yes, at least the current President of the General Conference and a recent President of Andrews would be among that group. Which brings up the question of integrity--is there a measure--just a quart low perhaps? Webster seems to think otherwise. It is all or none! Tom
Tom
Obviously, on some level Paulsen is able to coexist with the traditional view of the IJ. But notice in the statement Mike quoted, and which I'm copying below, Paulsen nowhere says that this is his view, only that it is the organization's view.
"Some are suggesting that since the 1980 (Glacier View) meetings, the very teachings that the church affirmed that year at those meetings have been abandoned, and that the church has essentially moved to accept the very positions it rejected then. Such a claim is a distortion of reality, and nothing could be further from the truth. The historic sanctuary message, based on Scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White, continues to be held to unequivocally. And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based, namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church place all matters of faith and conduct. Let no one think that there has been a change of position in regard to this." Adventist Review supplement June 13, 2002.
I suspect that Paulsen's view is very much Dave Larson's view, that the important thing is to hold the community together, and that there is a greater need to focus on those things that all Christians hold in common than stirring up controversy over the IJ. I don't hear anything to suggest that he's about to repeat Neal Wilson's pogrom.
But your question was about integrity. As you suggested, maybe we should wait for Dave to get back to address that part.
Someone asked the question: If you don't believe in the IJ can you still be a SDA? Another question, "Can you share (discuss, teach, preach) your alternate beliefs/convictions?" In the case of Des it was obviously "No". In response to the first question,Tom Zwemer says "the answer seems to be yes, at least the current President of the General Conference and a recent President of Andrews would be among that group". Personally, I do not want to exist (vegetate) in a church where I cannot have the liberty and freedom to investigate, learn and outgrow my out-dated beliefs. I must also be able to discuss and share my beliefs freely.
The integrity of the church, as well as of the individual, is involved here. To clearly state the beliefs of the church in the 28 Fundamentals and then adhere to another standard is confusing. I believe that the creed and baptismal vows should be more loosely constructed to be more inclusive, unless the church only wants those among its members who are strict "Spirit of Prophecy" adhering members. In many small churches, anyone who doesn't adhere to the Spirit of Prophecy and visibly practice the same, is considered a 2nd-rate Adventist and they are many times excluded from holding office by the nominating committee. And perhaps this is fair, if they have pledged to abide by a certain standard in their baptismal vow. It is time to broaden our perspective based on sound scholarship.
I still maintain that the Investigative Judgment and the prophetic gift of Ellen White stand or fall together. If the IJ is wrong, then so was EGW. How can we have an exceedingly high standard--100% accuracy--when judging the prophets of other denominations, and make all kinds of excuses for our own prophet? If Ellen White got every word direct from the throne of God, then it follows that the Investigative Judgment is pure, unadulterated truth. If the Investigative Judgment as taught by Ellen White is flawed (which I believe it is), then it follows that Ellen White did not get all her information direct from God as she claims. She should not, therefore, be held up as an "authoritative" source of truth.
Don,
Thanks for documenting the connection between the "Shut Door" doctrine and the "Investigative Judgment" on 06 September 2008 at 4:27. This represents the most logical explanation for what happened following the 1844 disaster. I believe that there was no need to abandon the Adventist movement, nor there was any need to resort to a face saving device contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.
The Adventist experience was predicted in the book of Revelation 10:8-11. It was predicted that after digesting the little book, the result would be "bitter." What our pioneers did is: By suggesting that we were right on the date but wrong on the event, they made us believe that the experience was bitter-sweet instead of simply bitter. This is human nature. We always want to improve on what the Bible says.
An unbiased reading of Daniel 8 provides no basis for assuming that the biblical reference had something to do with the heavenly sanctuary. Daniel was concerned about the desecration of the earthly sanctuary and about his Jewish race. There was no reason to jump from the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly one, except as a face saving stratagem which worked only for Adventists for a time.
The theologians of that time were agreed that Daniel 8 had to do with the earthly sanctuary, and what our forefathers did was an aberration that needs to be corrected. There is no logical reason to date the beginning of the Daniel 8 vision centuries before Alexander the great, which is the starting point for the vision. If we use the historical starting point for the vision--334 B.C.--the date for the Granicus battle, we end with 1967 A.D., the date for the "Six Days War" between Israel and the Arabs.
laercio,
In your comments dated 06 September 2008 at 4:49 you made reference to the "mark of the beast." The mark of the beast might have been a number in the past, but not anymore. Today, the mark of the beast is manifested by behavior. Whenever we do what beasts of prey do--attack, persecute, and destroy the innocent--then we are partakers of tne nature and character beasts. The question is: Who have been behaving like beasts of prey today?
Hitler, Musolini, Bin Laden, Idi Amin, and others. Can we exclude the United States? No, because we are engaged in the largest genocide in history. So far we have killed 50 million innocent human beings inside the abortion clinics, and our church is officially justifying many of these killing. If you have any doubt, read our official document entitled "Guidelines on Abortion," and make sure you read the fine print.
We have traditionally identified the Catholic Church as the "Beast of Revelation," and for good reason. We forget that the Pope has apologized for the church's history of Inquisition. Today, the Catholic Church is a champion defender of the unborn, and Catholic hospitals refuse to provide abortion services, while some Adventist hospitals are offering such services, including elective abortions for convenience. My question is: Who behaves like beasts of prey today? Does God give preference to our past behavior or the present one?
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic: The papal apology was a step in the right direction. Abortion in SDA hospitals is a step in the wrong direction. But take a long, hard look at the Vatican/Nazi connection. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD_lBstvptE&feature=related. Even if current leaders try to do the right thing...there are hundreds and thousands of years of momentum in doing the wrong thing to overcome. I don't envy them.
Mike: Here is the link to Holy Trinity Cathedral in Port-au-Prince: http://members.aol.com/projbin/plermurl.htm Sorry to hear about the Cavaille-Coll. I hope they can restore it. My favorite church/organ is the Cavaille-Coll at Saint Sulpice in Paris, France. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKImiR7a4zw and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHFkKtw8yMg&feature=related. Albert Schweitzer took lessons from Charles Marie Widor on this fine instrument. This is also where Silas broke up the floor in the Da Vinci Code. If you ever go to Saint Sulpice...watch out for Silas! They faked his death in the movie!
But nature is better than any church/organ in the world...and it's absolutely free! Salvation may be free...but the church costs us an arm and a leg...and maybe even our souls! Jesus didn't ask for money or tell us to build churches, did he? He told us to pray privately and to give to the poor. Was Jesus telling us not to go to church? Maybe someday people will use churches as sacred concert halls, rather than as a required part of being a Christian in good and regular standing. I don't know. I'm conflicted.
PLM,
Those are really probing questions you posted on 06 September 2008 at 10:03.
You seeme to agree with Des Ford on the atonement doctrine. I prefer Maxwells explanation. Actually, some years ago I wrote a manuscripT entitled: "Redemption in Spite of the Cross." It was prompted by the following explanation Ellen White listed for the death of Jesus:
*********
"Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but the suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation do our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God." [Education, 263. See my posting dated 29 August 2008 at 11:23.]
*********
My reasoning went like this: If God's suffering for sin started with lucifer's rebellion, and if it is true that "In all their afflictions, he was afflicted," then by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, God has suffered more than enough, and said suffering was not a payment for sin, but rather the natural result of sin, given that God is love personified.
Last afternoon, at Campus Hill Church, I submitted this quote by Ellen White and asked Dr, Ford whether the cross was a payment for sin or perhaps an everpayment. Unfortunately, the moderator did not get to my question.
I am with Des Ford on his rejection of the Investigative Judgment. Pre-Advent Judgment, no problem! But IJ, no way! It is not biblical. It was a face saving device connected with the Shut Door erroneous doctrine.
Now, regarding your dilemma of whether an honest SDA member should stay or leave, my question is: Where can we go? In my case, I have no reasonable alternative, given the fact that I do not agree with Ford on his forensic theory. He is solidly grounded on the writings of Paul. He hardly said anything about Jesus' opinion on the atonement, who explained his death as follows: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all to myself."
First, the term "If" suggests possibility instead of certainty. Jesus was born to be king, and had the Jews accepted him as the promissed Messiah, he would have played the role of a king. Second, his statement implies that the function of his death was to attract people to him as their Savior.
Now, coming back to the idea of leaving the church, where can I personally go? Do you have any suggestions? I believe that the Sabbath is sacred. How many options do I have? I do not believe in the forensic view of the cross, and I believe that the Adventist Church has compromised on the issue of abortion. Do I have any options? Should I convert to Catholicism and kneel down before a human priest, sinner as I am, and confess my sins to him? Should I compromise on the state of the death and the sanctity of the Sabbath?
Besides, I owe to the Adventist Church and to the Ellen White what I am today. Can I turn my back to what the Adventist community has done for me and my family? Should I not rather remain with my church, warts and all, and try to fix what is broken?
Some years ago a young man started a program entitled "Adventists for Life." He was soon frustrated with the apathy of his Adventist fellow believers. He confided his dilemma with H.M.S. Richards of the Voice of Prophcy who said to him: "You will never clean the inside of the church by trying to do this from outside."
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic,
"If I be lifted up, I will draw all to myself."
First, the term "If" suggests possibility instead of certainty.
Nic,
I'm not sure of this myself, but it would be a good idea to check the Greek if you haven't done so already. The Greek for if can be translated as a conditional possibility. It can also be translated as a predictive..."Since I will be lifted up..."
If:) the second is true in this text, this changes the whole meaning you are drawing from it. Jesus would then be speaking of certainty instead of possibility.
I'm not saying that I'm sure of this, but it would be worth investigating if you haven't yet, seeing that you are using this to build your doctrine of the atonement.
Any Greek scholars out there?
Thanks...
Frank
Orthoxymoron,
Thanks very much for the links. Caville-Col himself inspired several French composers including Widor. Regarding the Rieger in Haiti, a friend took over 100 photos of it to send to Rieger. I downloaded all of those photos on to a USB storage device. Also I have taken several with my digital camera that are better than the postcard copies on the website. If you send me an e-mail of a friend of yours, I'll be glad to send you some of the exterior of the organ, and of the Cathedral. Yes I agree about what you said about your Grace Cathedral "organ transplant."
Looking back the most beautiful experience I have had in a church was on one of the smaller Fiji islands when the locals would just start singing spontaneously without accompanying instruments. So heavenly.
I understand the tension you have, because I also loved the visits of the PUC choir and orchestra to Grace Cathedral accompanied by their beautiful pipe organ with their 64 foot stop! (I managed to play the cello in the PUC orchestra.) I agree also about how beautiful the Cassavant organ sounds at Loma Linda, although Hellmuth Wolff is my favorite Canadian builder.
It obvious to me that you have many tastes. Accept that variety and don't let any one put you in a box.
The SDA church needs your creativity.
I will close with a quote quoted in Des Ford's study leave manuscript by a Jewish scholar answering a letter of George McCready Price:
"Wishing you the blessing of the great God,
Years sincerely,"
Mike (Price had been asking about which specific day did Yom Kippur fall on 1844, and it seems that the guy really had a sense of humor - in writing "Years" instead of "Yours."
Nic, Des was asked to speak on forensic justification, and this meant a focus on various interpretations of the term in the Pauline writings, for instance the writings of N.T. Wright which some have taken up in Adventism; but actually he was addressing four different ideas that are common in SDAism. This was a scholarly presentation, the Richard Hammill memorial lecture, given by AToday to Des to particularly address. So the implication that he didn't talk about Jesus, but only spoke about Paul is an unfair one. Also, you can't philosophize from an Ellen White statement, however wonderful it is. She would say, don't use my writings—go to the Bible. There are a number of different salvation metaphors and Des speaks on them all, but the fact is (for instance) that the word 'propitiation' for instance, is rarely used compared to the word, synomyms and roots for justification. Des makes justification big, because the Bible does. It's the metaphor that most closely tells us how we can have a right standing with God. People can make straw men by going off at tangents on justification. If this means this, then that means that. But you can't throw it out because you don't like it. The Bible uses parables and they have a teaching point. But you don't press the details. For instance in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, it's not teaching hell fire, but the evils of self-reliance and despising of the poor. The same is true of metaphors. They are teaching specific things, but I think it's a mistake to go off making conclusions the metaphor is not intending about the nature of God.
I have found this blog to be very profitable, and I have recommended it to others. Here is one discouraging response that I received from a denominational employee who has been a pastor most of his life (he has a doctorate from Andrews). He said, "The Spectrum folks are really on the ageing fringe of Adventism (our generation!), and mostly talking to themselves/each other. Eventually they will die off unless Jesus comes soon, but the church will go on -- as it already has." I would like a rebuttal from someone qualified to do so. I would hope that the younger generation is better informed and more aware of the issues than my generation, and that they will also address the problems of the church in a more open and honest manner than in the past.
Nic, reading back, I never said
"that most biblical scholars agree that the Septuagint translation was done in 160 B.C."
I said that most biblical scholars agree that DANIEL was written ca. 160 B.C.
Most of the "Writings" (where the Jews had placed Judges, 2-4 Kings), were probably translated in the 1st century., B.C., while Ecclesiastes and Daniel date only from the 2nd century of the Christian era. In some books the translators took the liberty of making considerable additions to the original, e.g. those to Daniel, and these additions became a part of the Septuagint. In some measure the widening of the Old Testament canon in the Septuagint must be laid to the account of Christians. Philo (30 B.C.-45 A.D.) seems to have known the Greek version of most of the OT except Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles and Dneiel.
The chief value of the Septuagint lies in the fact that it is the only independent witness for the text of the O.T which we have to compare with the Masoretic text. It may seem that the critical value of the LXX is greatly impaired, if not entirely cancelled, by the corrupt state of the text. If we have not the version itself in authentic form we cannot reconstruct with certainty the Hebrew text from which it was made, and so cannot get at various readings which can be confidently confronted with the Masoretic text.
Before the Qumran discovery, there were no extant manuscriptgs of Daniel that dated earlier than the late tenth-century A.D.
It is true that the NT writers, as well as early church fathers appealed to the Septuagint as an authoritative text, and it was from that text that their quotations originated,
Facts that raise questions about the correct dates for Daniel were mentioned above; another is that in the 12th chapter, the writer speaks of the dead being resurrected, judged, and taken to either heaven and hell. At the time of Daniel, the Jews believed that all persons went to Sheol after death. The concept of heaven and hell was introduced centuries later by the Greeks. IT DID NOT APPEAER IN ISRAEL UNTIL THE TIME OF THE MACCABEAN REVOLT.
frank7,
You raised a valid question on 07 September 2008 at 12:39. I am not a Greek scholar, but I can read English. Here is another "If" dealing with the atonement:
"If he gives his life as an offering for sin ..." [Isaiah 53: 10, The New American Bible.]
By the way, did not Ellen White state that, had God's chosen people accepted Jesus as their promissed Messiah, that Jerusalem would have eventually become the capital of the entire world?
I believe that God always gives us two alternative futures to choose from: one if we are obedient and faithful, and another if we are unfaithful. This was the case with Israel of old, and this is the reason so many prophetic predictions regarding the glorious future of his chosen race were not fulfilled.
This was also true about God's promises to David and Solomon. They were made on a conditional basis.
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
Nic,
If you are going to continue to use the text from John, it would still be profitable to study it out more fully in the original...likewise the text from Isaiah, just to make sure you aren't reading into them what isn't there. If can even be used in English with varying shades of meaning. I personally would like to know what the original language states and implies.
Also, I cannot go with you in using EGW as a benchmark of interpretation as to the nature of the atonement. To be totally fair, she makes many statements that support peanal/substitutionary ideas as well as the ideas that you advocate.
In reading your many posts on the subject, I feel that you have cherry picked from her as well as the Bible on the issue. I feel the Bible offers a both/and imagery, as well as many other images of atonement. You seem to believe an either/or view that is informed by your reading of EGW's overall panorama, while ignoring the many penal references she also makes.
Thanks...
Frank
to Mike MacLennan: could you contact me
off-Forum at harlen.miller@yahoo.com.
I think we know each other.
Gillian,
Thanks for your comments dated on 07 September 2008 at 2:53. I must first state that I am indebted to Des for his view regarding the Investigative Judgment. I read his original book several times, and I highlighted some of his many scholarly remarks with different highlighting colors. This book opened my eyes to what the Bible was really saying about this issue.
Now, regarding the atonement and Des presentation yesterday. I was impressed with his description of the sacrifice Jesus made for our salvation. I do agree that he was asked to talk about his forensic view of the atonement, but this request was based on the fact that Des has always emphasized this particular metaphor.
I am rather leary of some of Paul's reasonings, and when I am reading his epistles, I try to remind myself that he was a lawyer, and lawyers tend to complicate things which are rather simple. This is why Peter told us that some people tend to misimterpret what he has written. For this reason, I have a preference for what Jesus himself stated regarding the reason for his death.
Jesus said that if a grain of wheat does not die, there won't be a harvest. He also said to Nicodemus that if he be lifted up, he would draw all men to himself. Notice the term "If," which implies contingency instead of finality. Perhaps Des can elaborate on the meaning of this term in the original Greek. Isaiah 53:10 also has the same "If" expression in the "New American Bible." Then we have the reference to God's Lamb which was "slain from the foundation of the world."
As you can see, Ellen White had good reasons to describe the cross not as an event in history, but rather as a proces which began with the entrance of sin into the universe. This gives us not a metaphor, but rather the reason for God's pain. God is love, and when his children suffer, he is suffering with them. This is why we have the statment: "In all their afflictions, he was afflicted."
Seen in this manner, the cross ceases to be a payment, or an arbitrary requirement, and becomes the natural result of love towards rebellious and ungrateful children who prefer to perish instead of accepting God's love and forgiveness. This is why I submitted a question to Des yesterday asking whether the cross was a payment or an overpayment for sin and rebellion. Unfortunately, the moderator did not include my question in the program.
I just checked the following terms in my dictionary: Atonement and propitiation. I discovered the following terms asociated with those two words: reconciliation, satisfaction, reparation, conciliation, pacify, favorable, and benevolent. Given the rich meaning of those terms, you can build either the forensic view or the the non-forensic view of the atonement on them.
This is why I have a strong prference for the explanation for the cross given by Ellen White in Education, page 63, because it agrees much better, in my view, with God's character who suffers when we sin and rebel against him. The notion of a masochistic Deity demanding the pound of flesh from the innocent does not impress me. I prefer to accept what Mrs. White said when she stated that the cross is a window for our dull senses of the pain and suffering God was subjectd to since the inception of sin.
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
Elaine,
Thanks for your comments dated on 07 September 2008 at 4:12. I hope you realize that, if the Septuagint translation of the Jewish Bible--Old Testament--took place around 250 B.C., then we have a serious problem with your claim that the book of Daniel was written almost a century later, because the book of Daniel is included in the LXX Greek translation of the Jewish Bible.
You do admit the notion that the New Testament writers did quote the LXX. This is evident from the fact that their citings differ from the Masoretic text, but tends to agree with the LXX. It is generally accepted that the Septuagint was the Bible of Jesus, and Jesus did refer to the book of Daniel in Matthew 24.
He also borrowed the expression "the Son of Man" from the book of Daniel. If you agree that the LXX translation to the Greek language of the O.T. was done around 250 B.C., then we have a serious problem with the dating you assign to the books of the O.T.
You did not mention the book of Isaiah. Are you saying that this book was also written during the Maccabean period? Significant portions of said book were found in Qumram. If you read Isaiah 53:10 it is stated that the Messiah would see his descendants after making his offering for sin.
How could this be feasible without a resurrection? Besides, when Jesus argued with the Saduccees, who did not believe in the resurrection, he told them: You ignore the Scriptures and the power of God, and he appealed to the Pentateuch, which the Saduccees accepted as inspired.
And, by the way,even if you assign to Isaiah a late date, you have to admit that the resurrection of the Messiah is implied here, and this prediction met with fulfillment. Of course, if you are a Bible critic, then you probably believe that Jesus' body was stolen by his disciples.
Can you tell us where you stand on this? Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God? Do you believe that he rose from the dead and was ascended to heaven? Do you believe that he can forgive your sins and mine? If you don't then what's the point of us arguing about side issues? Can we settle this core issue first?
Those who question the autenticity of the biblical record do so with the express purpose of denying God's power to predict the future. God has claimed the power to predict future events in the Bible more than once.
If you use the arguments of these Bible critics, there is no way for us to reach an agreement, since I do believe that God can predict the future, because he has the power to control the future outcome of events. If you deny this, there is no evidence which will entice you to change your mind.
frank7,
I read your comments dated on 07 September 2008 at 4:54. I agree that it would be advantageous to hear what a Greek scholar would say regarding these texts I used implying that the death of Jesus was not set in cement, but rather depended on the human response to God's revelation of God through Jesus Christ. Both passages include an "If" in reference to the death of Jesus.
Regarding Ellen White's many references to the atonement, someone has stated that in her many writings and borrowings, she did include all the major theories of the atonement. Why do I have a preference for the one she included in her book Education, page 63? Because it agrees with the character of God as described throughout the Bible. It also agrees with key passages of Scripture.
In the book of Revelation Jesus is described as God's Lamb which was "slain from the foundation of the world." In Isaiah, it is stated that "in all their afflictions, he was afflicted."
Said explanation for the cross also agrees with God's willingness to forgive sins right from the beginning. To the paralitic, jesus said: "Your sins are forgiven." He did not say, If I die for your sins, then your sins will be forgiven.
I find nowhere in the Old Testament the idea that God's forgiveness was contingent on Jesus' death on the cross. Even Isaiah 53, the classic Messianic chapter of the Bible, is expressed in the past tense, as something that had already taken place.
Even more: I like Ellen White's explanation for Jesus' death in her book Education because it frees God from the complicity in the death of the most innocent being in the uiniverse. If God's suffering began with the entrance of sin into the universe, and if "in all their afflictions, He was afflicted," then it follows that the cross is simply a way of revealing to the universe what God had already experienced as a result of sin and rebellion.
The cross ceases to be a historic event, and becomes a process by which sin and the result of sin--intense suffering experience by God himself--is revealed to the universe thus providing God with the moral authority to eradicate sin from the universe.
Yesterday afternoon, in Loma Linda, Dr. Desmond Ford admitted that all the theories of atonement are mere metaphors God has used to illustrate a truth which is beyond human understanding. It will be our study throughout etermity.
Ellen White's explanation I have cited so many times seems to be, not a metaphor, but a description of the natural result of God's love towards his creatures. Where there is love, suffering becomes the natural result of rebellion.
While Dr. Ford was preaching and answering questions at the Campus Hill Church, the Good News group were talking about the same topic at the LLU Church. At this meeting Pastor Randy Roberts described the cross this way: "The cross is what God did for us. The crucifixion is what we did to Him."
May the good Lord bless you and me, and the readers of this blog!
Nic Samojluk, http://www.sdaforum.com
He said, "The Spectrum folks are really on the ageing fringe of Adventism (our generation!), and mostly talking to themselves/each other. Eventually they will die off unless Jesus comes soon, but the church will go on -- as it already has." I would like a rebuttal from someone qualified to do so. I would hope that the younger generation is better informed and more aware of the issues than my generation, and that they will also address the problems of the church in a more open and honest manner than in the past.
Posted by: cyberkat AKA Kathie B. (not verified) | 07 September 2008 at 2:55
Hi Cyberkat (Kathie),
I am not an authority on Spectrum but only a subscriber. The following opinion should be verified with somone like Daneen Akers or may be better still Chuck Scriven.
My understanding is that Spectrum and the Association of Adventist forums are basically the same animal. Who comprises the board of Spectrum: included are faculty members from every SDA college and university throughout North American and possibly Australia and England.
Since when do faculty members become an "ageing fringe" in the church? They retire and are replaced by younger faculty some of which will comprise the Spectrum board.
All the best,
Mike
Nic,
If Jesus was "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world," then he could say your sins are forgiven to the paralytic or to anyone else before the cross, based on the fact that he knew he already knew he was going there.
I don't buy the tense argument. The eternal foundation of his death, as this text points out, renders it irrelevant to me.
Thanks...
Frank
Nic, the Septuagint that existed before the end of the 2nd century was only one of the versions of the OT in Greek, known to both Jews and Gentiles but did not contain all of the books that we call the OT today. The Pentateuch and perhaps part of Joshua was translated in the 3rd century B.C., while most of the "Writings" were likely translated in the 1st Century B.C., while Ecclesiates and Daniel (the latter incorporated from Theodotion) date only from the 2nd century of the Christian era. New books wre always added to the collection, and the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite.
Some translators took the liberty of making considerable additions to the original, e.g. those to Daniel, and these additions became a part of the Septuagint. The widening of the OT canon in the Septuagint must be laid to the account of Christians.
The rabbis, particularly Maimonides, the most eminent of all, as well as other Jewish authorities, were convinced that Daniel's prophecy referred to the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romas in 70 A.D. while secular scholars believe it better fits the reign of Antiochus or "vaticinium ex eventu" (prophecy after the fact).
Interestingly, this is the only OT book that gives the source for the names of any of the angels, Gabriel and Michael, while the Book of Tobit names another angel, Raphael.
Hello,
I have been reading with intrest the comments made by people here about Des Ford and the IJ. it is amazing to me how much sda's are confused about the issues and go to great lengts to complicate the issues. Des Ford's Attacks on the IJ are valid and sound. the IJ can be easily defeated once the underlying assumptions are clearly explained.
The Investigative Judgement Teaching by SDA's
There is a Sacanturary in heaven upon which the Earthly tabernacle and temple are based. Since the earthly sanctuary has 2 apartments, the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place, the Heavenly sanctuary has 2 aprtments also. the Heavenly is the model upon which the earthly is based.
Upon Christ accension to Heaven he entered into the the HOLY PLACE at which point he ministered there until the end of the 2300 days. The 2300 day's according sda caluclation ended on october 22, 1844 at which time Jesus entered the Most Holy Place and began to review the records of those who are his followers and who only profess be followers. When Christ finishes his review of the records he will return to the earth and give his reward to each group.
Analysis of the problems with the IJ.
1. Where did Jesus Go when He went to Heaven.
SDA: say the Holy Place.
Bible: Right hand to of the Father, Righ hand of majesty, Right hand of the Throne of God. Mark 16,Col 3,Hebrews.
2. what do the apartment in the sancturary stand for.
SDA: Christ heavenly ministery
Bible: the holy place: that a way into the Most holy place (heaven) has not yet been open. The Most holy place: Christ has opened a way back to the Father for us and that he in now our representative before the Father for us. Hebrews 9
3. The Day of ATonement:
SDA: The beginning of the IJ and the cleansing of the heavenly sancturary
Bible: The Bible says that DOA was fulfilled when christ entered into heaven it's self. Hebrews 9
edit to question 2
question 2: what do the apartments in the Sanctuary stand for
SDA: Holy Place, christ heavenly place ministery, The Holy Place, christ Investigative judgement ministery.
Bible: the holy place: that a way into the Most holy place (heaven) has not yet been open. The Most holy place: Christ has opened a way into heaven and back to the Father for us and that he in now our representative before the Father Advocating on our behalf. Hebrews 9
edit to question 2
question 2: what do the apartments in the Sanctuary stand for
SDA: Holy Place, christ heavenly place ministery, The Holy Place, christ Investigative judgement ministery.
Bible: the holy place: that a way into the Most holy place (heaven) has not yet been open. The Most holy place: Christ has opened a way into heaven and back to the Father for us and that he in now our representative before the Father Advocating on our behalf. Hebrews 9
To Don Barton, post 07 September 2008 at 6:38.
For Clarification: You started your post as follows:
"Arlin,
Thanks for you response. You said:
"The only problem I have, is with your description in your Point 7: "7. The seeds of Adventism grabbed what was left, and revised the shut door theory changing it from the past tense to the present tense, a "shutting door" theory,..."
Are you suggesting that you believe that the "shutting door" began on October 22, 1844? Or are you just recounting Adventist history? ...."
This material you attribute to me did not sound familiar, and the reason is that I was not the author of this material! So I will not attempt to reply to your questions but refer you to the original author!
Reference: post by Mike MacLennan 06 September 2008 at 3:58.
The first three paragraphs here are written by Mike, not me. Mike is only quoting me in his last paragraph.
---Arlin
To Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 06 September 2008 at 5:42
The material you posted from Miller's 1845 APOLOGY AND DEFENCE is his last published book as far as I know. His
health and eyesight rapidly declined and he died in 1849,
still looking for the "Advent Near," with his revised date "today, today,or today."
Miller still believed the delay was due to minor chronological errors of a "few years." But 163+ years later we know minor questions of chronology was not the problem.
Miller's whole schema was wrong!
Miller always shied away from an exact "day or hour," but he first predicted the Advent "about the Jewish year 1843." Later this was corrected to 1844. After Oct. 22, 1844, a date Snow had come up with reportedly from a "Karaite" calendar (?), which Miller only embraced for about the last two weeks, Miller for a time was still allowing for the possibility that the Advent could still occur as late as the end of the "Jewish year" around the Spring Solstice in 1845. But after that passed, he manfully admitted his error, and by Aug. 1, 1845, the date of his last book, APOLOGY AND DEFENCE, he could write with confidence the statements Aage quoted which say that he no longer believed Oct. 22, 1844 was a fulfillment of prophecy "in any sense" and he had "no confidence in any of the new theories" that included Edson's heavenly reinterpretation "vision" on Oct. 23, 1844 and
Crosier's later articles expounding it. Miller believed that these heavenly "spiritualized" or "deliteralized" views were all deceptive because the Millerites had looked for Christ's literal Advent, and now to contend that prophecy was fulfilled "in any sense" was deceptive. Miller's Historicist Rules of Interpretation required prophetic fulfillment to involve only one literal historical event and so he said he had "no confidence" in any of the "new theories" that reinterpreted the Oct. 22, 1844 date outside of the earthly historical process where it could only be confirmed or disconfirmed. There was a fundamental logic in Miller's position that is still hard to wiggle around or deny.
---Arlin
Kathy,
I think that your Andrews Ph.D. friend might have been mistaken about the nature of the demographics and the conversations here.
Anybody who has looked around on this web site at all will have noticed a growing number of >35 year-old contributors--a younger generation, the blog and the collegiate blog in particular are examples of that.
Secondly, while I don't know all the specific statistical details, Alex Carpenter has noted that over 7,000 unique viewers a week visit Spectrum! That's not really "talking to themselves" I wouldn't say.
Alex Carpenter, Johnny Ramirez, Raymond Thompson, Eric Scott...all part of Spectrum, and as far as I'm aware, all under 35.
Then there are other contributors like Trisha Famisaran, Ron Osborn, even me who fit into the "young adult" category.
And I'm note sure about other folks like Rich Hannon, Alita Byrd, and Daneen Akers. I've never asked how old they are, but my sense is that they are part of a younger generation as well. Here is a list of Spectrum contributors.
So you see the point. Spectrum has a wide and very diverse readership, and a growing number of younger participants. That should put to rest the idea that this is something that will die out if the Lord doesn't come.
Jared: Thanks for the (I guess) compliment but I probably don't quality as part of 'a younger generation' as I'm 59. So I probably fit Kathie's friend's 'ageing fringe' demographic that's presumably 'mostly talking to themselves'. And when I read comments like her friend is alleged to have said, I probably do start talking to myself - at least muttering under my breath :-).
frank7,
Thanks for your comments posted on 09 September 2008 at 2:13. You seem to assume that, since the death of the Jewish Messiah was predicted, that it must take place. How do you explain the fact that Jesus himself referred to his own death on a contingency basis in John 12:32? And how about the contingengy included in Isauah 53:10?
"If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to myself."
"If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the Lord shall be accomplished through him."
Notice that Isaiah 53 is clearest and most important Messianic prophecy we can find in biblical prophecy. Doesn't this remind you of Jonah's prediction which failed to materialize simply because of a positive human response to God's warning?
The only way you can correctly interpret these passages is by viewing God's predictions as warnings of what will take place provided human beings continue in their evil ways.
This is why God predicted for the nation of Israel both a glorious future, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple. The future of God's chosen nation hung on a balance, and human response to God's warning was the determining factor about which of those alternative scenarios would materialize.
This is what caused Jesus to cry over the Holy City following his triunfal entry into Jerusalem. On said occasion, the Lord lamented the impending fate of the Jewish capital with the following words: "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes." [Luke 19:42]
There is an Ellen White's reference to what would take place had God's chosen nation received their promissed Messiah as their King. Jerusalem would have become the center of the world. Had this taken place, do you think that God would have said: "Whoops! Our plan of redemption has been wrecked. What do we do now? The Jews have refused to kill the "Lamb of God!"
My friend. Had this taken place, there would have been no need for Jesus to die, because the "Lamb of God" was "slain from the foundation of the world." This is why in her book Education, page 263, Ellen White states that the cross was a mere window for our dull senses intended to show us the suffering God was subjected to since the inception of sin.
There was no need for Jesus to suffer more than what God had suffered already as a natural result of sin and rebellion. The cross was permitted for our sakes, not because God needed a pound of flesh.
Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com
Spectrum people are probably 'Progressive Adventists'. Several years ago at the Greenlake Church, in Seattle, there was a Forum meeting titled, 'Progressive Adventism: Oxymoron or Wave of the Future?' So which is it...or is it both? Des Ford, in his PUC Forum talk said that 'unless some new thing arises within Adventism...we'll be a forgotten sect by the turn of the century, or not long after.' I'm on the fringe or fence on just about everything. Did you know that fence-riders form splinter groups? And I talk to myself. I tell myself what I want to hear. I call it positive self-talk. It's easier that way.
Just because the church keeps going, doesn't mean that it's right. If that's the test, then we should all join the Roman Catholic church. That's the biggest 'we never change' church in the history of the world. There is, however, something to be said for continuity, and not constructing a new foundation every few years. Too bad that the teachings of Jesus weren't made the foundation of Churchianity(I mean Christianity). But Jesus threatened State Churchianity...which may be the major reason they murdered Him. Then, State Churchianity kept right on rolling. Jesus was just a bump in the road, as far as they were concerned.
Don't knock the ageing fringe. Haven't you heard of 'Righteousness by Senility'?
Ni
Built out of whole cloth! Tom
Elaine,
I read your arguments in defense of an assumed late authorship of the Septuagint Greek translation of the Jewish Bible which you posted on 09 September 2008 at 3:13. Let me quote the following for you:
*********
"The basic reason some scholars deny the genuineness of Daniel is that they have rejected the possibility of predictive prophecy (See J.E.H. Thomson, Daniel in Pulpit Commentary, p. XLIII)."
*********
If you do not believe in God's ability to predict the future, you will find enough excuses for rejecting any evidence that I might present to you in support of the authenticity of Daniel's writings.
So, before we engage in any further discussion, let's deal with the underlying premise of your position on this issue: Do you believe that God can predict the future? If you do, can you cite any examples of prophecies which met with accurate fulfillment? If you don't, then we are wasting precious time arguing over this matter.
On my part, I do believe that the Lord can predict the future, and that he often does so on a contingency basis. A good example is all the prediction concerning the future of God's chosen people. Right from the beginning God ordered Moses to make a recitation of blessings and curses, specifying in minute detal what would be the outcome of their future behavior.
The history of the nation of Israel is a good example of how accurately those predictions were fulfilled in the lives of God's chosen people. God promisd that he would gather them from all nations if they repentd of their sins, and we have seen the dramatic fulfillment of this promise in 1948 when a nation was reborn after two millenia.
The mere existence of the Jewish race is a testimony to the reliability of God's promises. Many nations have come and gone, but the Jewish people seem to be impervious to disappearance.
Nic Samojluk, www.sdaforum.com
Nic,
How do you harmonize these texts? Is the later but a metaphor? Is the harmonization that Christ willingly "fulfilled the contingency" and obeyed the Fathers "predetermined" will? "Let this cup pass but not my will but thine be done."
Also, what is this "guilt offering" and "bearing of iniquities?"
10 But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities. Isa.53:10,11.NAS
“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. Acts2:22,23.NAS
pat
Nic
Try Ps. 22
Isa 9:6,
Isa. 53:
John 1: 36
etc, etc, etc.
Tom
Nic Samojluk wrote on 11 September 2008 at 9:02:
"There is an Ellen White's reference to what would take place had God's chosen nation received their promissed Messiah as their King. ... Had this taken place, do you think that God would have said: "Whoops! Our plan of redemption has been wrecked. What do we do now? The Jews have refused to kill the "Lamb of God!"
I believe there is a general failure among all Christians to understand the truth about "who killed Christ?" Jesus stated plainly in John 10:17-18: "I lay down my life that I may take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received from my Father."
John 3:16 and many other texts show both God and His Son were making the Atonement voluntarily out of infinite love.
Christ had already committed His spirit to God and given up His Spirit before the Roman soldier's spear thrust. When they came to break leg bones Christ was already dead. Pilate had to verify His untimely death before releasing His body to Joseph and Nicodemus. All the rancor between Christians and Jews over who killed Christ is misplaced,tendentious and futile. Christ was not killed by any man, Jew or Roman, me or you, but He died voluntarily for all mankind.
This truth also speaks directly and powerfully to the issue of the best metaphor for the Atonement. No earthly finite symbolic metaphor can fully represent the infinite heavenly truth that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." 2 Cor. 5:19. Every earthly finite symbol is always infinitely less than its Infinite Referent. All the earthly finite metaphors of the Atonement put together give us but a
vague finite mosaic picture of the True Infinite Reality. And the Cross is only one facet of "the mystery of godliness."
Finte Human minds can never understand, but can only stand in awe and accept this love Gift of God by faith.
There has been considerable recent discussion on this Spectrum thread about the date of the book of Daniel.
The following brief notes are from my forth-coming book
exploring Adventist Millerite hermeneutical and exegetical roots and the Adventist "Identity Crisis."
"NOTES on the Critical Issue of the Date of the Book of Daniel: Internal evidence: Depicts Daniel as a wise statesman / prophet (fl. c. 605 to c. 535 B.C. See Dan. 1:1, 20; 2: 1, 48; 4:18; 5:11-14; 7:1; 8:1; 10:1). External evidence: (1) Dan. 9:1-2 cites the contemporary prophet Jeremiah 10:1; 11:1, 45; (2) Ezekiel (14:14-20; 28:3) cites Daniel as an outstanding contemporary example of righteousness and wisdom.. (3) Josephus (Antiq. 11.8.5; Against Apion 1.8) says Daniel’s prophecy antedated Alexander the Great (4th cent. B.C.) and even Artaxerxes I (5th cent. B.C.). (4) Jesus cited Daniel as an inspired historical prophet who predicted then still future events (Matt. 24:15; 26:64; Mk. 13:14; 14:62; Lk. 21:20; 22:69).(5) Heb. 11:32-34 and other NT books, the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and 1st cent. Judaism accepted Daniel as an inspired canonical prophet who lived when his book claims he lived. (Wm. Miller accepted this traditional Canonical View.) Modern Critical scholars adhering to *The Primary Axiom or *Canon of Methodological Naturalism (see Glossary) deny a priori the very existence of divine prophecy, echoing the ancient pagan theory of Porphyry (c. 232-304 A.D.), a neo-Platonic critic of Christianity who wrote Against The Christians in which he theorized that “the book of Daniel had been written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and ‘did not so much say what was yet to happen as he narrated past events.’”( Jerome, quoted in ACCS, Daniel, p. 151). Porphyry reflected the ancient pagan naturalistic worldview—now shared by many modern liberal critics (Froom, PFF, Vol. 1, pp.326-330) who accept “the Maccabean Hypothesis” dating Daniel’s book c.167-164 B.C.. Some admit “court stories” in chapters 1-6 originated earlier, yet claim Daniel’s predictive prophecies in chapters 7-12 were written as “history after-the-fact.” They deny Daniel’s literary unity while ignoring chapters 1-6 also contain predictive prophecies! The “complete sclerosis of critical thought” (Yamauchi’s phrase) becomes more acute as the weight of historical-linguistic evidence continues to increase. See Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, OT, Vol. XIII, pp. 149-154), Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers,Vol.1, pp. 35-85, + annotations in my Annotated Bibliograph under Abegg, J. Baldwin, Cohn, Daniel (The Prophet), P. Davies, Ferch, Ford, Hasel, Johnsson, Kriwaczek, S. Miller, Porphyry, Towner, Vanderkam, Younger, etc."
I would appreciate objective critical comments to factor in any necessary revisions to this statement. But for Christians, the words of Jesus about Daniel seem conclusive on this point, if we believe Jesus was Who He claimed to be. Porphyry's hoary old theory has less and less modern conservative scholary credence as the weight of evidence mounts against it. Before Porphyry there was no serious question like he raised, and since then critical scholars have largely just echoed his unproven and unprovable theory,
with decreasing effectiveness.
pat,
Your posting dated 11 September 2008 at 12:50 matches another one you made on 11 September 2008 at 3:15, which I did answer. It must have been deleted, because I spent 45 minutes trying to locate it but could not find it. I will take the time to respond again ASAP.
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Pat
Here is my response to your posting dated 11 September 2008 at 3:15:
There is no need to harmonize biblical texts which are clearly contradictory. Take the classic case of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. One biblical passage asserts that God hardened his heart, while another tells that it was Pharaoh himself who hardened his heart. Logic tells us that there is no way to harmonize those clearly contradictory statements, unless you grant that both God and the Egyptian King were working with the same objective in mind: the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.
A similar situation we have with the military census ordered by King David. The Bible has two contradictory statements attributing both to God and to Satan David’s determination to carry out such a military census. Then we have the two explanations for salvation. Saint Paul argued that we are saved without any works, while the Apostle James was convinced that the opposite was true.
When I was a college student at what is now known as the “Universidad Adventista del Plata,” Argentina, I remember that teachers used the following illustration for salvation: Using one oar, faith, would get you nowhere. You need both oars—faith and works—to reach the desired destination.
This was fine, but when the New Sabbath School Quarterly arrived at the local Adventist printing press, the translator didn’t know what to do, because the lessons emphasized the Pauline doctrine of “faith alone” plus nothing else. When the interpreter’s turn came to translate the following statement: “We are saved by faith alone,” he altered this to “We are not saved by faith alone,” and the problem was solved.
We need to recognize the fact that God did not write the Bible, he merely inspired the men who wrote Scripture, and each one of them had their own insight into the mystery of salvation. The only thing that God wrote with his own hand was the Ten Commandments, and we have two slightly different versions of the Decalogue.
Jesus wrote on the sand, and we have no idea what the content was. What he said and did was recorded by four inspired individuals, and there are some divergent accounts of some of the things Jesus did and said. Some scholars have worked hard to harmonize the Gospels, and their work is quite valuable, but the reliability of the work of salvation is not dependent on the accuracy of such efforts. We can live with some tension.
Regarding the reference to the “guilt offering” in Isaiah 53:10, we need to bear in mind that it is stated on a contingency basis: “If he would render Himself as a guilt offering.” This means that the outcome would be contingent on human response to the Messiah. In Romans 12:1 Paul invites us to offer our bodies as a “living sacrifice,” which we interpret in a metaphorical sense.
Why can’t we interpret Isaiah’s reference to a “guilt offering” in a metaphorical sense as well? The term “If” should allow us to have an open mind. It was predicted that the Messiah would become a guilt offering.
This meant that we have two options: A sacrifice that included the death of the victim, or a “living sacrifice” which did not. The human response to the Messiah would determine the outcome. Since God’s chosen nation rejected Jesus, Paul interpreted this to mean a sacrifice that included the death of the Son of God.
I have noted on several occasions that after the fact explanations usually are misleading. The classic example is what happened when Joseph of old met his brothers many years after they had sold him into slavery. He was now the second in command in Egypt, and had the power of life and death over the Egyptians.
Joseph brothers were afraid he might pay them back for their evil deed. Joseph allayed their fears by attributing to providence what had taken place. Does this mean that God was responsible for the cruel treatment he had received from his brothers?
Was this the only way God had for saving Jacob and his family from famine? Not so! The Lord in his providence transformed an evil and cruel act into a blessing for everybody. This is what God delights in doing when we repent of our evil deeds!
You also quoted Scripture in reference to God’s “predetermined plan and foreknowledge.” In order to interpret this passage correctly, we need to bear in mind that God’s preference and original plan was for Israel to accept Jesus as their rightful Messiah and King. He would have been happier if Jesus had become a “living sacrifice” instead of a dead one.
Ellen White tells us that, had the Jews welcomed the Son of God as their rightful King, Jerusalem would have eventually become the capital of the world. You can read this in the fourth chapter of Micah the prophet. Notice what verse 7 says: “And the Lord shall be king over them on Mount Zion, from now on forever.”
Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums
Correction to post by Arlin Baldwin 10 September 2008 at 3:31
Incorrect Sentence reads as follows:
"After Oct. 22, 1844, a date Snow had come up with reportedly from a "Karaite" calendar (?), which Miller only embraced for about the last two weeks, Miller for a time was still allowing for the possibility that the Advent could still occur as late as the end of the "Jewish year" around the Spring Solstice in 1845."
The words " Spring Solstace" should read:
"Spring Equinox" (Or "Vernal Equinox," which falls about March 21.) Thus Miller's letter published March 26 in the Advent Herald could definitely come out against the Shut-door position. Some thought the end of the "Jewish Year"
could be as late as sometime in April, 1845. But by the time the Albany Conference began on April 29, 1845, it was clear to all that the "Jewish Year" had ended uneventfully, and by Aug. 1, 1845, Miller could confidently say in his Apology and Defence that Oct. 22, 1844 had been
without prophetic significance "in any sense."
--Arlin Baldwin
Arlin
Can you provide some context for James White's proclamation of a Second Coming in the fall of 1845?
"The reason why he [Jesus] did not mention the fourth watch is given in Matt. 24:43:"But know this, that if the good man of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched." Do we know what watch the Lord is coming? Certainly. Three have passed, and there is but four. All who see this light will receive a certainty that before the 10th day of the 7th month 1845, our King will come, and we will watch, and like Noah, know the day. (Rev. 3:2) Awake, awake! awake!! ye heralds of the Jubilee, and tell the scattered flock, The morning cometh! James White. Boston, Mass.Sept. 1845."
James White, "Watchman, What of the Night," The Day-Star, September 20, 1845, p. 4
Response to Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 21 September 2008 at 7:37
Interesting statement, Aage, but no, I cannot recall any specific context for this one. This was apparently before the Whites heard about Edson's heavenly reinterpretation "vision" on Oct. 23, 1844 and the subsequent Edson/Hahn/Crosier studies and Crosier's article which Ellen later endorsed. Edson's "heavenly reinterpretation" of Oct. 22, 1844 confirmed that date but reinterpreted the event as a heavenly one,thus discouraging later date-setting among the Sabbatarian group that accepted this idea (except Bates' 7-year 1851 failure).
There were a number of post Oct. 22,
1844 dates set by various other splinter groups but none were endorsed by Miller as far as I know.
Arlin
Let me add another "except" to your list of Adventist end-of-the-world prognosticators, Hiram Edson himself, who predicted Jesus would return in 1849, to wit:
"And now, with all the confidence and positiveness with which we proclaimed the midnight cry in 1844, yea, with tenfold more confidence and positiveness, we now declare that we are now beginning to hear the sound of our high priest coming out. 1810 years Jesus was employed in the holy place receiving penitent sinners, forgiving sins. The idea is plausible that he will be in the most holy as many days as he was years in the holy, which was 1810 which would be a little short of five years, and would terminate before the 10th of the 7th month, 1849. And our past and present experience and inspiration and the signs of the times, all conspire to declare that Michael is just on the point of standing up."
Hiram Edson, The Time of the End; its Beginning, Progressive Events and Final Termination (Auburn: Henry Oliphant, 1849) p. 15.
These people had been through a series of demonstrably false predictions--1843, spring of 1844, fall of 1844, fall of 1845 (James White)--and yet had the confidence to add 1849 to the list (Edson) and 1851 (Bates) to this disastrous list. Although Adventist ended up rejecting time-setting (been there, done that), EGW would always maintain that those who had stood up against this fanaticism from the beginning, especially by rejecting Miller's 1843 and 1844 dates, had committed the unpardonable sin, and would forever be lost.
This reminds me of what the angel predicted would happen to those who dared to swallow the "little scroll." [Probably a reference to the study of the prophetic book of Daniel.]
"Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey."
Traditionally we Adventists have applied this prediction to what happened in 1844. Nevertheless, we have overlooked the fact that the swallowing of the scroll would result in a bitter experience.
We have transformed it into a bitter-sweet one by alleging that we were half right and half wrong. Right on the event, but wrong on the location. It is high time, I believe, for us to admit that we were wrong on both counts.
In this respect, we owe an apology to Dr. Des Ford, who opened our eyes to this fact at such a great price to his career as a faithful worker in God's vineyard.
We are not good at admitting the mistakes of our church. In this we might learn from the Catholic Church which, according to some counts, has publicly apologized for its past mistakes over 100 times.
Response to Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 28 September 2008 at 3:41
Thanks Aage for this time-setting example from Edson
himself in 1849. This statement is summarized (but not directly quoted) in a paper by James R. Nix, "Life and Work of Hiram Edson," Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, Fall Quarter, 1971, p. 97. It is significant because it is AFTER Edson's Oct. 23, 1844 heavenly reinterpretation "vision" in the cornfield and the Edson/Hahn/Crosier studies and Crosier's article that Ellen White endorsed as "the true light on the sanctuary."
It shows that time-setting the Second Advent did not cease
easily even AFTER the "heavenly reinterpretation" of the
Great Disappointment, since Bates continued it even in 1851.
I agree with your last paragraph. I don't think one can justify or approve of time-setting. The long history of this practice in Christianity and Judaism during the past 2,000 years clearly shows it to have been an erroneous unbiblical practice resulting in great disappointments and confusions wherever practiced, and Millerism and early Adventism was no exception.
This blog was absolutely extraordianry! Thanks to everyone who so thoughtfully contributed. It is amazing the body of pain that is still out there as a result of what was done to Dr. Ford and so many others. Talk about religious abuse! Someone should make the story into a book... or a play! What about it Red Books people?
The young Des Ford played by Pastor Tim Mitchell. The villan Neil Wilson played by Greg Schnieder!! (just kidding Greg)
The following text form the NEB is the best conclusion to this whole matter. In the comforting reassuring words of our Master...
"In very truth, anyone who gives heed to what I say and puts his trust in him who sent me has hold of eternal life, and does not come up for judgement, but has already past from death to life. John 5:24
Selah Doug Cooper nushagak@sbcglobal.net
I have never believed in the benefits of so called “group therapy”. It makes only people feel good about their problems but it doesn't solve them. It’s a kind of soft hypnoses.
Frankly speaking it's a high time for doctor Ford and his support group to decide whether they want to continue feeling good about their problem until they die or whether they want to die to self and get to know the power of Christ resurrection by becoming partakers of the Divine Nature.
It is sad to see what incalculable damage a misplaced empathy can do to those we supposedly love so much. The value Jesus puts on his life has been hugely underestimated by his friends just like the one of their own. For Christ sake he deserves definitely better love than this.
I challenge doctor Ford to prove to me from the Bible (KJV) only no excuse, in the public that his theories are Scriptural. I want to see how they will stand the test of the Word of God. Please don’t make me feel good by avoiding the challenge.
My contact details are:
Mladen Davidovac
Ph 064 9 550 4885
So many words uttered! Go and preach the Gospel - please. And you will find the Pauline Gospel in Daniel 8:14. The word 'nitsdaq' erroneously interpreted as 'cleansed' means 'justified' and Paul sees the seed of the Gospel in that rich word. This surgical discovery sutures the gap between opposing views of Daniel 8:14. Before contacting me, please read the research that supports this glorious find at: http://www.hkea.org.au under the navigation tab 'Daniel's Gospel'. Good news indeed!
Herb Kersten
Gospel Evangelist
HKEA
Melbourne, Australia
Post new comment