This Ford Still Runs! Desmond Ford Speaks in Morisset

This Ford still runs! OK, not really. Desmond Ford (pictured left, 1979) doesn’t even jog any more but at eighty-seven years of age he still does a lot of walking and swimming and writing and preaching. This past Saturday, February 6, he returned to the vicinity of Avondale College where he lectured for more than sixteen years. He spoke to about 300 people in the Morisset Uniting Church, reflecting on two topics, women’s ordination and the doctrine of the Investigative Judgement.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Arguments don’t change societies, Robert Bellah states in Religion in Human Evolution; to change a society you need to change the narrative. In the last decade the US has changed radically on the issue of homosexuality because of a new narrative about who these people are. When people fell in love with Ellen DeGeneris and Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper, the thought of applying either the levitical death penalty or Paul’s words in Romans 1 to them suddenly became impossible. It was not done by argument, but by a changed narrative. “Anderson Cooper is a charming, good guy who should not be executed or ostracized for whom he is.” This is also what happened to the I.J. and the 1844-complex of dogmas.

In the 1970s so many people came to love the narrative preached by Desmond Ford that they were willing to sacrifice a sacred dogmatic camel to uphold it. When Ford gave his infamous speech in November of 1979 in which he laid out the reasons for rejecting the dogma, he was kicking in a rotten door. It was not his arguments that made the difference; it was his Gospel. It was the rejection of perfectionism that spelled the end of the I.J. and not exegesis or syllogisms. Not surprisingly, the only people who still see the I.J. as a pillar of the faith seem to be perfectionists.

Desmond Ford will not be remembered as a scholar and exegete but as a preacher who changed the SdA religious narrative with respect to how people saw themselves in relation to God.

On the issue of ordination: in Antiquity women were cultic citizen–hence Paul’s words about the equality of men and women, slave and free before God–they were just not political citizens. They were excluded from power, from decision making and hierarchies. Is this what literalists are fighting to preserve? A social construct that arose in the Middle East independent of the Bible?

As for Canale’s critique of Ford: it seems to me that Luther’s “realized eschatology” should not be confused with “Greek” timelessness, any more than John 3:18 should. The weakest link in Luther’s theology was his reading of “law” in the NT. Paul may have sanctioned Luther’s interpretation of what he and Pseudo-Paul wrote, but Luther went beyond Paul.

And while Luther’s theology conflated the last judgment with justification, as far as the believer was concerned, it does not imply that Luther’s thinking was not linear. Of course, the one whose theology demanded a final judgement for both believers and people like myself was Jesus. The “historical” Jesus, the one who came from Nazareth and not Heaven.


It is clear to any nonpartisan, objective observer that the scriptural underpinning for the IJ is very tenuous and fragile. But regrettably SOLA SCRIPTURA does not prevail in this case, otherwise this “manmade” dogma would have imploded long ago.

The problem is, it is a “woman made” dogma since EGW endorsed it.
This now makes it untouchable to any church employee. No wonder a panel of preachers could not be assembled to address the issue!
If you question the IJ in any way, it becomes an indictment of the church’s prophet.

The most pivotal, pertinent, and paramount of the IJ’s pitfalls:
“The Seventh day Adventist employment of historical facts is manipulated”.

No, it is the arcane, abstruse, enigmatic, esoteric historical facts, rather than their manipulation which is the problem.
Let us face it, you would almost have to be a PhD archeologist/historian/OT scholar, to extrapolate the starting date, supposedly, 457/458 BC, “the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”.

Prior to the Internet era, how was the average Christian in the pew, able to research this esoteric date, even if he/she had an Ivy League library at his/her disposal? Even today are we sure this distant date ls accurate??

Surely issues important to salvation should be available to ALL BELIEVERS,
not just to elitist, erudite academics able to research obscure historical dates in dusty libraries?

Less than Bernie Sander’s ‘top one per cent’ would have had access to this historical information through the centuries of the Christian Era. I am truly amazed that the Millerites, largely farmers and blue collar, were able to elucidate this complicated prophesy and its esoteric commencement date.

Even today, most Adventists would be hard pressed to give a lucid, articulate Bible Study of the IJ if spontaneously asked to do so!

The Investigative Judgement dogma’s greatest impediment is the impenetrability of its intricacy.

Let us keep the Salvation Story simple, salable, sensible and suitable to our “salt of the earth” parishioners.


And did he note that Paul wrote that a woman must not teach or usurp authority over a man because man was created first. Paul wrote this, and since Ford loves the writings of Paul so much (that he based part of his theology on a twisted interpretation of a small fragment of his writings) he should be familiar with this passage. How about the passage that the head of woman is man?

Ancient Israel was also a nation of Kings (plural) and priests. Is that supposed to mean that they were all kings and all in charge? This is taking a small concept and stretching it well beyond its intended application.

Ford can believe all he likes, but that’s not what Paul wrote. He wrote that women should not speak in church or usurp authority over a man because of what happened in Genesis 1 (something Ford denies is historical).

“13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobermindedness.”

That’s one person’s opinion. Others may disagree.

He asked the wrong people. Australian Adventism is so steeped in Fordian doctrine that very few of the current administration and very few newly-graduated ministers would be able to deal with this issue, unless they did their own serious, independent study. The ones most able to answer Ford are not in denominational employment. Why didn’t Peter Dixon invite Kevin Paulson to come down from the US? He would have given Ford a good run for his money. Why didn’t he write to some independent ministry, such as Steps to Life, Remnant Ministries etc? Why didn’t he invite Colin Standish to debate Ford?

Huh? No dates are wrong. On what does he base this assertion? The fact that he disagrees with the day-year principle? Every date checks out to the letter. Every smallest detail checks out.

And Ford rejected a literal 6-day creation on the same faulty reasoning - because the evenings and mornings of Genesis 1 are the same language as the evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14. He’s not looking for the meaning of the text, he’s looking for excuses to reject it. Because he couldn’t find a certain word does not invalidate the interpretation.

No erring is taking place. There is a clear parallel.

Which is part of restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem. It’s not just rebuilding. To restore the city you need to rebuild its justice system as well. And that is when the actual restoration began to take place. Not earlier. Not later. For then the link in the same prophecy to the first coming of Christ is gone and you need to do some serious cognitive dissonance to get the date of Jesus’s anointing from any other decree.

Here’s a good starting point for further musings on the subject of the Investigative Judgment. Note, I don’t agree with everything these people write (for they reject LGT for example), however on the subject of IJ, they are spot on.

Questions which Ford still hasn’t answered to my reasonable satisfaction:

  1. When did the 2300 evenings/mornings start?
  2. To what event do they refer to?
  3. When did the 1260 and 1290 days start?
  4. What event(s) do they culminate in?
  5. If you don’t believe in the day-year principle, and if you think the decree of Artaxerxes is the wrong one, how do you get the date of Jesus’ first coming from the 70 week prophecy? What sort of mental gymnastics do you have to undergo?

Elephant in room, Des rejects a literal six day creation, how do fundamentalists react to this?

EDIT: I’m not sure if I’m the only open ex sda now atheist here. I left the church over the IJ & Ellen thanks to Des’s insights . Even now I think his view on the IJ is better than the sda one ( from within the world of the story ). Im actually not attacking Des. He thinks the six day creation wasn’t literally true, I agree. He thinks there’s a god behind it somehow , IMO he might be right there, I don’t know ( I don’t think so ). He thinks there wasn’t a worldwide flood of Noah , and that there might have been severe local ones etc- I agree. He doesn’t deny science- I applaud that . He’s a decent kind loving human being, it’s a privilege to have met and heard him


First, define “fundamentalist”. You would think, these labels were printed in heaven, by the way we insist on cataloging religion. In this case, it’s the cart that pushes the horse. The only reason we still have seemingly educated minds pushing a literal six-day creation" in our “hallowed halls of ivy”, is because of the Sabbath - not because it makes sense. We don’t expect multi-headed monsters literally popping out of the oceans, as described in Revelation, but we insist that Genesis is a scientific treatise on how the world was created.

In all matters pertaining to biblical interpretations, the elephant in the room is Ellen White. This church is stuck in the 19th century, theologically, scientifically, and socially until we figure out that Ellen White’s function is not as the infallible spokes-person for God. At least the Catholic pope gets replaced every now and then, bringing fresh perspectives. Science and God do not have to be in opposition. There are numerous devout Christians who are able to respect, “God’s second book” (a term coined by EGW, by the way).


How could a gospel reformation possibly take place? We need a miracle for that to happen…


So…I gather that Des Ford is pro WO, anti IJ…
yet pro Sabbath…
which is at odds with at least 3 regular posters on this site.

I would have zero grief if the SDA denomination crashed and burned in flames. The true body of believers in Christ will prevail. They know the true gospel, what is grace, and what are the requirements to be saved.

So many SDA just are followers of scholars instead of reading & studying the bible for themselves. I can tell from years and years of attending church & Sabbath school classes.

The current institutional educational system counters revival and reformation. So many pastors and teachers are playing church when there is spiritual war taking place on an individual, as well as a local and larger conference level.


If anything attacks on Desmond Ford continues. Adventism is American founded; the sectarian Gene pool patriots of Ellen G. White the American born the prophetess oracles are finite tenets not prosecutable absolution of righteousness other countries have no business editing. Hence, Desmond Ford an Australian continues encapsulate by EGW police sectarian patriots on guard. DF is a spotted trouble maker out of country renegade a must put to stop around the clock of rejection; a nemesis perpetuate collision with EGW Adventism editors. American Adventism life long Nemesis. Conversely, Adventism would be dull in America without Desmond Ford. Heaven without good society cannot be heaven – for there are full of bad sectarian on earth.

Probably one good reason why the great majority of SdA members don’t go out two by twos as the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons do as Jesus instructed.

While I concur with your counter-challenges to Desmond Ford’s attack on the sanctuary doctrine, I would disagree that “the ones most able to answer Ford are not in denominational employment.” Dr. Gerard Damsteegt, who teaches church history at the SDA Theological Seminary and was present at Glacier View, would certainly have given a powerful and persuasive rejoinder to Ford’s denial of the investigative judgment doctrine. So could such articulate Adventist scholars as Michael Hasel, Ingo Sorke, Clinton Wahlen, and others—not to mention any number of evangelists and pastors who still hold to our classic teachings on Biblical grounds.

I am honored by your mention of myself as one who could have been invited to this exchange, and most assuredly I would have been happy to sit on such a panel had I been invited. But as I continue to seek full-time reassignment in formal denominational ministry, I am resistant to any characterization of my work as “independent” or in any way marginal so far as the organized church is concerned.

Let me add, if I may, that a very large number of inquirers—close to 30 so far— have written me privately and requested my paper, “1844: Embattled Yet Enduring,” which I offered in an earlier post to send on request to participants and observers here. I am most grateful for the volume of interest in this topic, and pray it continues.

1 Like

I’m sure Gideon and his 300 had a great time at Morisset last Sabbath! Afterall, Des Ford has been a real and wonderful mentor to a full generation of Adventist theology and education students. And it would be suprising if he forgot your name, if you had ever been his student. His emphasis on Christ and his righteousness was a vital and lifegiving understanding that formed the foundation for the life of the great bulk of his students. It also formed the best antidote to the theology of the early Robert Brinsmead.

Yet I have wondered at the wisdom of Des Ford combining comments on very diverse topics - ordination of women and the sanctuary and the investigative judgment. Certainly, I can agree with Des Ford’s thoughts about the ordination issue, yet there was nothing novel in what he said about this. His theology concerning the sanctuary and the investigative judgment is more problematic for me, for reasons I will detail below.

While I applaud renewed discussion of ordination issues in the South Pacific region, which I am led to believe was the major purpose of the meeting, such discussion is unwittingly complicated by the introduction of other seemingly unrelated issues.

[Probably it was in 1988, that the late Dr Andrew Mustard, theology student Billy Leonard [currently a prominent member of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA], and I, a postgraduate student in Theology were travelling toward Gloucester, England to attend the local Adventist congregation. The building was next-door to Fred West’s house, though we didn’t know at the time. (Fred was later found to be a serial killer of several of his own children and other youths to whom he and his wife had provided sanctuary. He buried his victims in his backyard). In our discussions that day we attempted to solve the ordination issue that was even then being manifest among Adventists. Andrew Mustard reminded us both that this could not be thought of as an issue that divided conservative Adventists from their more progressive peers].

Yet, I fear that the involvement of Des Ford in such as issue will convince many undecided church members in Australia that ordination issues among Adventists should be thought of as conservative vs progressive. They are not!!

We really need more open and frank discussion and education of Adventists in the South Pacific on these ordination issues. And we desperately need to build our theology of appointment to leadership roles based on a broad foundation. Specifically we need a well honed Adventist hermeneutic such as Bertil Wiklander and the Trans European Division have developed as the starting point for all discussion and research. We then need to build a theology of the whole people of God and a theology of ministry and discipleship. With such foundational elements in place we may safely move to work on a theology of appointment to leadership roles and the associated rites of induction, blessing and consecration.

I do not believe that Adventists should wait till a process of attrition and debate gifts Adventists with practices of ordination which are not undergirded by well appreciated and understood guiding principles. Rather, Adventists worldwide should develop a system which as far as possible eliminates any incipient hierarchy in favour of rites of appointment that truly embrace a theology of ministry and leadership where the spiritual gifts and specific roles of people of both genders are affirmed and set to work. In my mind, such a move necessitates a move away from a hierarchy of deacon, elder and pastor in favour of a more lateral affirmation of people in their specific roles - teacher, professor, deacon, institutional administrator, pastor, specialist resource people, elders, doctors, nurses etc.

In the following paragraphs I wish to comment on Des’ sanctuary and judgment theology. The first thing to say is that even his sternest critics do not fault Des Ford’s theological logic. Take for example, Fernando Canale, Prof Emeritius of Theology and Philosophy, SDA Seminary, Andrews University. In 2013 Canale wrote the book,Secular Adventist; Exploring the Link Between Lifestyle and Salvation. This book is a critique of Des Ford’s theology that perceives it from a deeper perspective than is usual. Fernando Canale, with his training and experience in philosophy as well as theology has been able to examine the ‘justification only’ gospel from first principles ie foundational hermeneutical perspectives.

I quote, “Desmond Ford correctly perceived that the Protestant understanding of justification by faith contradicts the idea of an end-time judgment. Convinced that the Protestant interpretation of justification by faith is correct, he argued against the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment… Following Ford’s conviction on the meaning of the “gospel,” many Adventists have implicitly or explicitly, rejected the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary and the historical interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.” (27).

In Fernando Canale’s critique of Luther, his reasoning gets to Luther’s primary philosophical commitments. (Perhaps it is helpful to recognize that Canale wrote his PhD dissertation on such foundational philosophical commitments, so this kind of discussion is not new to him).

Canale’s critique of Luther is as follows:

  1. Luther understood the reality of God according to the Greek philosophy of timelessness. Roman Catholicism did too. Here God’s being is timeless and spaceless. In fact, Luther borrowed this philosophy from his early training.
  2. This understanding directly affected the way Luther understood divine actions. Justification is a divine action flowing from God’s will and power.
  3. In such an understanding of God’s reality, “God doesn’t live or act in the sequence of past, present and future, but all in one ‘instantaneous’ moment.” (39). In other words, as Luther states, “God does not see time [the time of our lives], longitudinally, [sequentially]; He sees it transversally [simultaneously, all at the same time].” (Luther as quoted in 38).
  4. According to Canale, Luther believed that God cannot understand life from such a sequential view or look at it in a longitudinal way. He is not capable of doing this. Rather, Luther believed that God saw things transversely [vertically and similtaneously]. from his static and timeless eternity.
  5. Thus, “time and history, our lives, our acts, are not part of the world of the Spirit but of the human body. Justification takes place in the spiritual world, the world of the human soul.”
  6. Luther thus understood the eternal world to be a non-material universe. The flow of history only extends as far as the second coming, after which life will be “a timeless, spaceless form of contemplating God in the “one moment” of eternity.” (42).

Adventist teachings such as the literal nature of the heavenly sanctuary, the literal, visible return of Christ, the non-immortality of the soul, the millennium and the new earth, plus the great controversy between Christ and Satan through history including our historicist understanding of prophecy - these all rebel against a spiritualized understand of God and eternity. If justification happens in the world of the Spirit and sanctification in the realm of history and life, then of course they can’t belong to the same whole. Yet it was on such a spiritualized understand of God, his actions and eternity that Luther built his gospel.

God’s love for humanity is not static. It is able to respond to the changing circumstances of human life. Here John Peckham’s recent book The Love of God: A Canonical Model (IVP, Oct 2015) is helpful. John Peckham is Prof of Theology and Philosophy at the SDA Seminary.

Jesus in the gospel taught the gospel of the kingdom. This kingdom is the realm in which God is active to defeat the usurper of His kingdom. We could say therefore that reference to the gospel is nothing more or less than a reference to the great controversy between Christ and Satan and it’s assured outcome.

This divine stategy of God was implemented in the first promise in Eden to engender conflict between the Seed of the woman and the seed of the Devil. This promise was repeated and expanded to the patriarchs, Israel and took form with the establishment of the Davidic kingdom. The prophet Daniel wrote prophecies of encouragement to God’s people who had witnessed the destruction of the promised Davidic kingdom. Here, Daniel outlined the coming defeat of the kingdoms of this world and the establishment of His eternal kingdom. The cornerstone of that Divine Kingdom was laid in the first coming of Christ. And in his subsequent ministry to people held in the kingdom of the Usurper. By his teaching and by his ministry to individuals, Christ released people from the chains that bound them in slavery to sin and the Devil. Christ introduced them into the freedom of His love. In the teachings and ministry of Christ he illustrated that the power of divine love was much greater than the love of kingly power as illustrated in the life and career of Satan. There could be no more potent illustration of this Love than in the self-sacrificing death of Christ - a moment of weakness that hid divine strength to save all that come to God for salvation. The moments of His resurrectional triumph over the ruler and the kingdoms of this world and his inauguration in the heavenly temple as ruler of the heavenly kingdom were made real to his followers because of the descent of the Spirit in all his power. The Spirit of God, the Vicar of Christ, was poured on the followers of the Master to bless and empower the lives and ministry of His waiting saints who are to continue the ministry of Christ, in word and deed, just as their Master. What a powerful gospel the good news of the kingdom is!!

Aage, linking perfectionism with the IJ debate is historically true. Ford rattled the gates of the perfectionists in the 1960s and 1970s. They were livid. They tried all sorts of means to silence him. His 1979 Forum lecture on the IJ was simply used as a pretext to be rid of him. After all, eminent men like Syme and Cottrell publicly agreed with Ford on the IJ issue but they were not axed. Ford was axed primarily because his gospel was hated. And perfectionists still hate it.


Robin, there is a great deal of sense in your comment. The IJ is one of the most serpentine arguments in religion, wriggling and weaving its way through the long grass of theology. I have asked many SDA ministers to come to my home and give me a Bible study about it but none of them has taken up the invitation. I wonder if they understand its complexities, its assumptions, its unbiblical nature?
I remember that my local church once invited the Field Secretary of the South Pacific Division to preach about the IJ. He used no timelines, no dates, no assumptions. The thrust of his message was that we should not expect God to execute judgement on an individual unless He has first made an assessment of that individual. He didn’t even say if that assessment was instantaneous or prolonged. In other words, he dodged every pit-fall in the IJ theory.


Pagophilus, in a back room of your home are you trying to turn lead into gold like the alchemists of old tried to do? No? I thought not. Then why do you continue to use a pseudo-scientific method like the year-day theory to interpret the prophecies? The experiment has been done hundreds of times before you were born and every time the experiment has failed. Why do you waste time persisting with it?
You ask the question, “How can one arrive at the dates of Christ’s ministry if 457 BC is not used as a starting date?” The answer is simple. The prophecy of Daniel 9 is conditional on the Jews finishing transgression, putting away sin, atoning for wickedness and welcoming righteousness. Study the inter-testamental period and you will find they failed miserably. It got to the low point of the high priesthood being bought for huge sums of money (simony). Therefore we should not expect to find a fulfilment of the prophecy. Whatever date you start with, 538 or 457 or 444, it is an exercise in futility because the Jews failed and the prophecy about them failed.
One of the basic rules of biblical exegesis is to match the biblical context with historical facts, something which the IJ theory ignores.
Why didn’t Peter Dixon ask Kevin Paulson or Colin Standish to speak at his meeting? I guess only Dixon can answer that fully but I suspect it’s because neither Paulson nor Standish is regarded as a credible Biblical exegete in the scholarly community. In fact, in my neck of the woods they are cartoon-like figures who are lampooned.


Kevin, I believe you have a mind for mathematics. Would you do a mathematical exercise for me? Please add up the number of times the year-day theory has been used to predict the Second Advent and calculate the ratio of success/failure? Let me know when you have an answer.
Your recommendations of Damsteegt, Hasel, Sorke and Wahlen need to be put alongside Peckham and Canale who are mentioned by Peter Marks in another post on this site. Evidently there are vast differences of opinion about the IJ among SDA scholars. That was also true at GV. In fact, there is an anecdote told that Damsteegt was reprimanded in one session at GV and told to keep his mouth shut because he was having too much to say.
I would add that despite the support for the year-day theory given by Damsteegt and Hasel’s father at Glacier View the Consensus Statement found very little biblical support for it. Without strong biblical support for the year-day theory the whole superstructure of the IJ crumbles into a pile of rubble.
Can you also provide me with names of non-SDA scholars who support the IJ? That will give some objectivity to the discussion.


I look forwards with great anticipation to Kevin completing his homework task and providing illumination on the foundation of the IJ thus helping us as we sincerely seek the truth.
Number of times year-day theory used to predict the Second Advent =
Ratio of success/failure =
Amount of strong biblical support for year-day theory to prevent IJ crumbling into a pile of rubble =
Names of non-SDA scholars who support IJ =



Thank you for sharing my paper.

However, you are incorrect that I reject LGT. What I reject is Andreasenist LGT. Here is the difference between Biblical LGT and Andreasenist LGT:

Biblical LGT

  • There WILL be a last generation (obviously)
  • Christ’s coming HAS been delayed. (Adventist theology collapses otherwise, as I demonstrate in the first chapter of this book:
  • Evangelicals believe human beings have an immortal soul and that this soul was tainted when Adam sinned. They believe that this taint was later passed on through the immaterial soul to all his progeny. Adventists are not dualists and therefore the Evangelical debate about the Nature of Christ does not make sense within Adventist theology. (See this for more details:
  • Because we are not dualists (see above article) sinless perfection IS possible. However, it is not necessary for salvation EVER.
  • There WILL be a generation of Christlike Christians (whether sinlessly perfect or not) that will help prepare the world for the close of probation (see this for more details and also the second chapter of the book above).

Andreasenist LGT
In the early 20th century, ML Andreasen came to the conclusion that Christ’s coming had been delayed and proposed that the reason for this delay was that God needed a significant number of people to reach sinless perfection before God can win the great controversy and defeat Satan.

Now it boggles the mind that the Adventists of his generation did not slap him upside the head for such heresy. What’s even crazier however is how many people have bought into this nonsense even up to the present. So let’s think through the implications of this theory for a second:

If Jesus had failed in any way during His mission on earth, people like Moses, Elijah and Enoch who were already in heaven would have had to come back down and die with the rest of humanity. By implication, if Satan cannot be defeated without the complete victory of the last generation, their failure would have to mean the same thing. Their victory therefore, would also have to mean that they were almost as much humanity’s saviors as Christ Himself. Throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity the saved would sing their praises alongside Christ since, after all, Christ overcame having never had an experiential knowledge of sin while these people, after having been slaves of sin for years or decades. We cringe when we hear about cloistered monks trying to live righteously enough to earn extra merits not only for themselves but for other people as well. And yet, this last generation is doing the same thing, not just for a few people, but for the entire human race.

Now someone will here argue that the victory of the last generation is by grace not works, a miracle accomplished by God and not something done through the power of man. But if that’s true, it can no longer be said that this is any kind of demonstration or that this is what’s delaying Christ’s coming, as Andreasen claims. If God does the miracle Himself, nothing is really demonstrated and the delay is really God’s fault because He hasn’t yet performed this crucial miracle. If it’s not God’s doing, then the last generation WILL have something to boast about before God.

Even worse than this ludicrous theology, is the practical effect of this line of reasoning. People think Jesus has not come because they are not perfect enough, so they try even harder to be perfect. But, when Jesus still doesn’t come, they question their own sincerity and commitment. Also, this is why you see so many Adventists separating from their brothers and sisters to associate with only the more dedicated Adventists from self supporting ministries etc. If Jesus hasn’t come because of their lack of perfection, they need to keep themselves surrounded with near-perfect people so that they have a chance in attaining perfection as well. Ironically, the people most eager to hasten Christ’s coming have been the very ones most responsible for delaying it, since what God really wanted from them was to join forces with their brothers and sisters and to take the gospel to the world.

Andreasenist LGT supporters have zero chance of getting anywhere against the likes of Ford. It’s like trying to cure cancer with AIDS. In fact, had it not been for Andreasen’s heretical influence, it is highly unlikely that Ford’s apostasy would have resonated with anyone else in the church, had he even apostatized altogether.

The biggest problem with Ford’s arguments is that they are peripheral; they only scratch the surface of the Investigative Judgment banking on the fact that most people are superficial thinkers and will not dig much further beneath that surface ( ). He’s already been checkmated but continues to elegantly move his pieces because his fans won’t notice anyway. But the degree to which Andreasenism plays into his narrative must not any longer be overlooked. If the church continues to tolerate this heresy within its borders and does not take a firm stand against it, it will lose any power it still has in dealing with Ford-like attacks both from within and outside the denomination.

I can now see why it is so hard for the Gospel of Grace to be heard, and understood by people. The reason is that the Gift of Eternal Life is free, and is given by the God Man, to simple people, me being one of them.

Not in a long drawn out explanation that requires you to do something.

Most people never hear the Gospel, but when they do it is such a joy !!!, If it was the first Sermon they heard then the path would be a little more easier.

Also if there were no Women, then there would be no men to be head over the women.


One of the great classics of hip-hop culture—the realm of rap music, and its associated forms—is the 1987 record “My Melody,” by Eric B. & Rakim. (It can be found on their album, Paid In Full.)

On that track, there are a few, brief lines that hip-hop cognoscenti consider totems of the art form. They’re where Rakim, the vocalist, or emcee (m.c.), states:

I take 7 emcees put 'em in a line
And add 7 more brothers who think they can rhyme
Well, it’ll take 7 more before I go for mine
Now that’s 21 emcees ate up at the same time

What Rakim Allah is saying is that it doesn’t matter how many other artists you throw at him. In a rhyme battle—where artists must compete with their best boasts, subject to the approval of the crowd—he would take them all down simultaneously.

I thought about those words, just now, reading Milton Hook’s essay, above:

“When organising the meeting, [convener Peter] Dixon tried to set up a debate or a panel discussion on this issue. He asked eighteen Seventh-day Adventist ministers to take part, but all declined.”

I belly-LAUGHED OUT LOUD when I read that. I did so both times I saw it. I’m sure Milton Hook did, too. And, of course, he didn’t let it pass. He needles these timid types, like Elijah berating Baal’s prophets in I King 18:

“Why were these ministers reluctant to come to the defence of this key Adventist doctrine? They are paid to defend all the Fundamental Statements at every opportunity. Were they afraid they would have to defend sandcastles using paper darts?”

This is GREAT. I only wish Peter Dixon would have offered those pastors the opportunity to debate Dr. Ford collectively; as a group; 18-to-1. That way, Des could have treated them like Elijah. Or like Rakim.