Whenever the topic of Des Ford comes up for discussion, I always recall the statement he made so many times when expressing his opinion of someone with contrary views that it seems like his own “hall-mark”…
“I agree with what he affirms, but deny what he denies”.
I feel the same way about some of the answers in this interview. When he affirms the positive reaction of the church in general to the things he presented on such topics as Justification by faith as the assurance of salvation which leads to sanctification… I agree wholeheartedly. But when he seems to deny that this has been widely accepted in the church at large, I have to disagree… even though I also recognize the hold-outs for such things as “LGT” teachings.
I could wish that he would be a little more kindly in his public remarks like this. I think it would lead to a better acceptance of his work in areas where he has been, and continues to be, of great value to the SDA church.
I think in particular of his explanations of “The Covenants”… the value of the Sabbath and healthful living… the value he puts on Ellen White’s writings… the way he is leading in harmonizing science and scripture in ways that denigrate neither of them… and many other topics.
Roy Gane was a challenging colleague of Des Ford for years. He seemed to resent even the man himself at PUC. I read Des Ford’s thesis prior to Glacier View. I saw it as an intended life preserver but was really a rope and a Rock that would sink the Church. I am sure Neal Wilson saw it that way also.
Des’s understanding of the separation of Justification and Sanctification is the more critical position. I strongly agree and support the Ford view. One just has to read the findings of the Council at Trent to know that the official view of Adventism is in error. Tom Z
I heard Des Ford speak in NZ circa 1977, and was just a little too young to participate in the Glacier View stuff - but was an active spectator.
A huge fraction (maybe well over 50% in some areas) of 30-50y old SdA members left the denomination in Australia and NZ because of the way the leadership handled Des, Glacier View, Walter Rea, and EGW.
In the aftermath, the Australians learnt a tolerance that the rest of the denomination has failed to learn.
I was in Africa when this all came to a head, so did not have much but a very peripheral involvement, nor did i think much about it.
I think one thing not mentioned so much here is that Ford is a Preterist, believing that no prophecies extended beyond the very near yrs after the NT. All the fulfillment was in the first 100-200 yrs or so of the new millennium. I think there is some support for this, but it is way away from Adventist thinking. There is quite a bit against it as well. I don’t think you can be a Preterist and be an Adventist at the same time.
Tom, I think you meant to say Erwin Gane. Erwin was the one who opposed Des so strongly at PUC… and was a contemporary with him.
Roy is Erwin’s son… and not at all like his dad. I recall with some bemusement the time I was talking with a professor at Andrews I had known for a long time, even before he came to Andrews, and he recommended that I meet with Roy Gane. I bristled… .much as you did here… and he just chuckled and said, “trust me, Roy is not Erwin”. I did that. Roy gave me a copy of his book. I finished it overnight and went back the next day to go over it with him and a “fine-toothed comb”. The result of that was me putting it up on At Issue… .where it remains to this day.
If you will take a look at his book that I recommended above, I think you will see that very clearly for yourself. And it is Roy’s view which predominates in Adventism today… not Erwin’s, which was essentially Andreasen slightly warmed over.
Which is why those of us who see all those prophecies as having fulfillment within a century cannot affirm that Adventist interpretation which is based on the founders original understanding which has still never officially changed. Why that interpretation is still valid is incomprehensible knowing history as we do today.
(Mercy triumphs over judgment. James 2:13)
And yet he is.
You’re expressing a credal standard that doesn’t exist in Adventism.
Thank you. There is no such official statement so no one should be classified as Adventists or non-Adventists unless the church makes it the 29th FB (Oh wait, there are several more that may take No. 29 and 30.)
I was told by my father that in his parents’ home they had a couple of ducks in the backyard. One of them was constantly walking as if he had drunk something, always walking with a compromised balance.
So they kept an eye on him, and soon figured it out: they had some poppy flowers, and the smart guy was eating from the plants several times a day.
However, there was no mention of any new story being created by that duck at that time…
what happened to Judah in Babylon and post Alexander, happened to the seven Churches under Rome, repeated during the Inquisition, and will be repeated until the end of time. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The trouble is immediate classification prejudged all subsequent thinking. Adventism clings to a semi dispensational understanding of Revelation in assuming the seven churches represent periods of church history. Tom Z