What is interesting to me is GC is used to imply Adventism is a continuation of the Reformers such as Calvin and Luther.
Des taught JBF “alone” as embraced by the Protestant reformers.
Yet, the church leadership has mostly always fought against the Soteriology that Calvin and Luther taught. LGT accepts the RCC view of Justification. That’s what I call apostate Protestantism.
4 Likes
Des gave us a book, early on, - a summary of what happened before, during and after Glacier View. I believe it’s in this book that both he and Gillian wrote that they fully expected what did happen. The verdict had been pre-determined. Of course we all know that, no matter what the official report says; or how much it looked like they were actually considering what Ford said. No SDA administration is going declare the IJ and 1844 erroneous.
5 Likes
I have the attention span of a retarded fruit fly, terminal Alzheimer’s and stage 5 dementia.
1 Like
What does “alone” mean?
What is RCC view of justification?
1 Like
JBF to Reformers meant to “reckon” righteous.
JBF to RCC means “to make” righteous.
There you have it in 2 short sentences. Easily read and understood.
Des embraced this.
3 Likes
I never knew him, or met him, but he made a great impact on me as a theology student at Newbold College. Glacier View is a shame to the church; how the ‘Bretheren’ treated him, and eventually betrayed him.
4 Likes
If, IF…, you are really interested, get his book and start reading by yourself. Why to rely on others???
4 Likes
I just read this on FaceBook, a comment by David Bews to a post by Lowell Tarling:
"And yet ignorance of what Dr Ford did for this church and individuals is still ripe out there."
https://www.facebook.com/drdesmondford?tn=%2CdC-R-R&eid=ARDc5qftT57vcNKK4zOTQV4W1qJyg4ha2vUJ8gnIyiuDeps6lgUlSqCBX60oBzF6XBI8sFN18IKAR9tA&hc_ref=ARQ3RmfsZZQXODvDxOOuT_GodR32exvIyeUDZmLD1JgdjNebP8n4S0B0MGFcPiIFXYw&fref=nf
4 Likes
Nice evasion of the question, but funny nonetheless.
Have you ever heard that there is some truth in humor?? Oh…the psychology of it all! 
3 Likes
That might explain a few things…rofl
Simple concepts for simple minds. 
(posted this also on Fulcrum7 site)
Some of the major differentiation examples between the Spectrum forum and Fulcrum7 are:
- Acceptance of EGW as part of the biblical canon.
- Acceptance of the Bible as the sole basis of doctrine.
- Acceptance of the Investigative Judgment as definitive for salvation
- Acceptance of the Investigative Judgment NOT definitive for salvation
- EGW non-authoritative for doctrine
- EGW authoritative for doctrine (Ultrecht Official Statement) www.adventist.org.
- Sin as the transgression of the law ONLY
- Sin (whatsoever is NOT of faith) is sin.
- Nature of Christ (before the fall)
- Nature of Christ (after the fall).
Given the recent passing of Dr. Ford, I am reminded of the multiple and various “definitive” beliefs (ways to determine truth). Since each one must study for themselves, each is responsible for seeking out God. One of the things I’ve noticed on both liberal and conservative perspectives is the “lack of acceptance of the human-ness of others”.
For the conservative viewpoint, EGW is read (in place of and/or super-ceding the authority of the Bible). It is my belief that if we do not keep her “humanity” (ability to be less than perfect) in proper context, she becomes the prism on which every thought and/or issue is “validated/texted”.
On the flip side there is the liberal view point which also doesn’t accept the “humanity” and value of her writings. Which leads to an avoidance of what she added to our understanding of prophecy, and her multiple examples of making God pre-eminent.
In my life experience and in discovery of truth (from God’s word), I must vet/prove all things from a scriptural point of view, with the last word being the Bible. I understand and have friends that “source what they believe differently”.
-I believe the remnant of Revelation are people that choose to honor God (He alone is worthy of worship).
-This is the tapestry (not exhaustive), of the “environment/culture” that is advent-ism.
-There are true worshipers in each one of these “beliefs/realms of thought”.
-To negate the humanness of someone just because they do not agree/disagree. On both sides of the liberal/conservative landscape, in my humble opinion lowers “their spiritual value”.
I have friends in each one of the definitive points. I do not think they are of “less value” because I agree/disagree with them regarding “where I am on my journey to diligently seek out God in my daily life”.
However, I do understand and have friends that accept EGW as canonical, and although they see it biblical, I do not. I do however respect their frame of reference. You can still disagree with someone without denigrating their character.
with kind regards,
1 Like
I believe we should be respectful and saddened by anyone’s death and have sympathy for family members. Desmond Ford may have had many truths but he still misled people in other areas. My husband was a theology major at an SDA college during this Desmond Ford/Glacier View timeframe. We attended many open forums discussing the issues held at the college campus. We support the decision made at Glacier View for the removal of his ministerial credentials. His views undermined a major SDA doctrine and discredited many of the inspired counsels of Ellen White.
1 Like
“Sharp, clear perceptions of truth will never be the reward of indolence. Investigation of every point that has been received as truth will richly repay the searcher; he will find precious gems. And in closely investigating every jot and tittle which we think is established truth, in comparing scripture with scripture, we may discover errors in our interpretation of Scripture. Christ would have the searcher of his word sink the shaft deeper into the mines of truth. If the search is properly conducted, jewels of inestimable value will be found. The word of God is the mine of the unsearchable riches of Christ.” {RH July 12, 1898, par. 15}
If you believe Ford had new light that our church rejected, then I would have to strongly disagree with you. If we throw out the investigative judgment then we would lose a whole lot of other doctrines with it. I’m sure that I could produce a number of Ellen White statements in which she warns of people introducing new light that shakes the foundation and pillars of our faith that has already been established. She even specifically mentions our doctrinal views on the judgment that the early pioneers diligently searched the Scriptures to understand. I do not wish to do “battle” with Ellen White quotes to support this. The Bible record stands firm in supporting our doctrine on this matter.
I’m actually somewhat shocked that all these pro Ford comments are on this forum. I haven’t heard this debate in years and I thought it was all laid to rest a long time ago. No one I know supports what he taught that caused him to lose his credentials. Let us honor Desmond’s death but not give support to those teachings that digress from our faith. Let this issue die and be set aside once and for all.
1 Like
Most of us missed the gift of formal theology studies that would have enabled more scholarly, arcane discussion of his work. Yet some of us caught just enough of Dr. Ford’s message to be drawn to re-read Daniel and to celebrate his (and Daniel’s for that matter) relentless life mission to remove from that precious book of assurance the histrionic scariness with which all too many delight to portray it.
The core of this reader’s delight rested in the Ford-motivated arrival at 7:22.
“Then God Most High, the Eternal God, came and judged in favor of his chosen ones, because the time had arrived for them to be given the kingdom.” CEV
An astounding moment. Most of my generation had missed that “Judgment FOR the saints” assurance and had spent our youth in a state of nervous, rebellious resignation. Who could survive an “investigative judgement” for heaven’s sake? Ford and others who risked and sacrificed their “denominational credibility” led us to that better place where the IJ became the Liberating Judgment; not only full acquittal but the unlimited adoption as children of that “God Most High, the Eternal God.”
2 Likes
Sojourner, when you comment what you have- you keep the “issue” alive and well. It cannot go away/set aside because it can never be resolved.
It is surprising that you are “surprised” about our “Pro Ford comments”. Your comment sounds completely disingenuous.
4 Likes
Did any of his views discredited the Bible?
7 Likes
So? God calls each of his children to seriously question every precious and closely held truth. He does not want people who are simple followers without question. And what does it really matter that he had beliefs that differed? Neither his, yours, or my salvation hinged on any of those beliefs.
If the church should have learned anything from that era of our history it should have been Jesus and Jesus only but the church did not learn that. Instead it learned power, deceit, and graft, and continues to pay the price.
4 Likes