| Author | Message | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1178 Registered: 3-2005 |
The Spectrum forum at www.spectrummagazine.org/phpbb has been very slow coming back up after it had it's meltdown awhile back. However, a new thread has just been started on the legacy of Glacier View. This of course was where Desmond Ford was judged to be a heretic and "burned at the stake" or defrocked for challenging the SDA church on the 1844 hoax and the Investigative Judgment. Some of you may be interested in getting involved with this discussion over there, and I think it should be interesting. For those who were registered, it is a simple matter to re-register, and join the discussion. It is a good opportunity for folks to express their feelings about this lynching that took place. Stan | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 63 Registered: 11-2005 |
Stan - your post about the treatment shown Desmond Ford, and the constant denial of any serious Biblical study of this subject by the Seventh-day Adventist leadership, is a masterpiece! I think you express the opinion of the rest of us. Very well stated. I am trying to formulate a post there that is even a shadow of yours. <grin> Gilbert | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 98 Registered: 12-2004 |
Stan, Thank-you for your Spectrum post.That article by Raymond Cottrell is also a masterpiece in its clarity and directness. I have shared it with a number of Adventist Pastors and they just do not know what to say. Randy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1183 Registered: 3-2005 |
I will post that link to Raymond Cottrell's article on the Sanctuary doctrine which is absolute must reading for all former SDAs here at www.jesusinstituteforum.org/AssetOrLiability.html One reason this is so interesting is that here you have a man who gave his entire life to SDA defending the doctrines taught by EGW. He was even the editor of the SDA Bible commentary. Near the end of his long life, he published this paper detailing the problems with the sanctuary doctrine, and spelling out the corruption of the SDA church with regard to how they treated Des Ford. As long as this doctrine is upheld, SDA cannot be called an evangelical church. Stan | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 66 Registered: 11-2005 |
Walter T. Rea did much the same. My wife and I still have our comprehensive compilations of Ellen White quotes in the "Bible Biographies" and "Daniel and the Relevation" spiral-bound books that we used for Bible class at Southern Missionary College. Walter T. Rea was the master compiler of Ellen White quotes at that time. Both Jerry Gladson, head of the Religion Department, and Ed Zachrison, one of our Bible instructors at the time, were also "shown the door." Another close friend of mine was Richard Hamill -- actually his daughter Marcia Hamill -- who was in my grade through quite a bit of Andrews University Academy. He got the shaft from President Robert Pierson because they were making creation discoveries that were not consistent with George McCready Price's interpretation of Ellen White's writings. And when the messenger brings a message the Seventh-day Adventist denomination doesn't like, the denominational leadership shoots them. That is a far different "spirit" than one that "encourages" Bible study. Gilbert | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1186 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks everyone who has posted so far on the Spectrum forum. The responses are all interesting, and guibox from R/S got involved as the most recent poster. I would love to see a flood of responses to this topic over there, and, who knows, maybe it will have some impact. The 1844 doctrine will always continue to be a noose around the neck of the SDA church and the Investtigative Judgment is one of the most serious hoaxes ever invented. I still can't believe with this doctrine on the books, that evangelicals would still accept SDA as evangelical. Stan | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 878 Registered: 7-2004 |
Spectrum has tried various topics to pique the interest of their former posters and to bring them back after their website meltdown. This mention of Dr. Ford is the only one that seems to have really gotten much notice, and it is drawing in new people as well. Once again we are encountering the phenomenon of people from various places, unknown to one another, coming to the same conclusions. There are no accidents, particularly for those who have dedicated their lives to the will of God. It is going to be interesting to watch how this thread plays out and who eventually takes part in it. | ||
| Dt Registered user Username: Dt Post Number: 76 Registered: 4-2005 |
Also mentioned in that thread is this website http://www.2300days.com/ by Frank Basten. He does a very good job of showing the weaknesses of the assumptions necessary to accept the 2300 days/Investigative Judgment. DT | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 880 Registered: 7-2004 |
I received the following link or data, I'm not sure how it will appear, from the cousin that I mentioned on another thread -- the one that was dropped from her SDA church without explanation. It is more compelling data on Glacier View. REPORT: SYDNEY AUSTRALIA ADVENTIST FORUM REMEMBERS GLACIER VIEW TWENTY-FIVE YEARS LATER Dr. Milton Hook, Immediate Past President, Sydney Adventist Forum Twenty-five years ago Dr Desmond Ford was dismissed from his position as a theology lecturer at Pacific Union College (PUC). His ministerial credentials were also revoked. At the time it was predicted it would ìbe recorded in annuls of church history as a day of infamy and shame.î1 Ford had addressed a Forum meeting on the campus of PUC in 1979 in which he outlined some problems with the traditional SDA views on the sanctuary doctrine. They were well known problems to many SDA scholars and ones that Ford had wrestled with for more than two decades. He suggested some answers in the Forum meeting but those hearing the enormity of the problems for the first time were so overcome they failed to grasp his solutions. A storm of protest quickly gathered after the meeting, blowing all the way to Washington, D.C. Ford was met with a ìPlease explainî by church administrators and given six months to write a defence. An evaluation took place at Glacier View Ranch, Colorado, in August 1980, when a large group of church theologians and administrators met together. There was a general perception, among the theologians especially, that the Glacier View discussions were helpful. Even Ford himself was reasonably content with the Consensus Statement hammered out in the proceedings. But while the delegates were trundling off with their suitcases a small group of church executives were confronting Ford with ultimatumsóìAdmit your views, as written in your manuscript, are erroneous or lose your position as lecturer.î ìPublicly denounce Robert Brinsmead as a troublemaker and heretic or hand in your credentials.î Fordís conscience would not allow him to renounce his manuscript, particularly in view of the fact the Consensus Statement incorporated some of his concepts. And he was well aware his academic peers agreed with the main thrust of his views. Furthermore, Ford was never going to denounce a man like Brinsmead. After years as a perfectionist Brinsmead was finally converted, publicly admitted his error, and was preaching the gospel as vigorously as Ford. To disown a fellow member in the body of Christ would be to disown the Head. Church theologians expected ongoing discussions. However, church administrators had painted themselves into a corner with their ultimatums. There was no way out. They took steps to dismiss Ford. These actions brought quiet rejoicing among some ultra-conservatives, a small but vocal minority. For various reasons, they despised Fordís gospel ministry, especially those with a perfectionistic orientation. Others who had heard him preach or sat in his classes or read his articles were shattered. Scores of Fordís peers signed letters of protest about the precipitate decisions regarding his demise. Hundreds of front-line generals in the Adventist army were subsequently fired over the next few years because they sympathised with his views. Battalions became demoralised and faded away into other employment. Thousands of thoughtful members vacated the pews. The real numbers are much higher than official estimates. One Australian was so upset he dashed off a letter to Neal Wilson, General Conference president, saying: I didnít go to church today. Yesterday I got the news that you axed Des Ford, and today I am staggering from the blowÖ I thought that we were tolerant and pluralistic enough to handle Ford. I could tolerate Herbert Douglassís perfectionismÖ I could tolerate anything, just so long as we had sermons on the Cross. And now youíve axed the man who spear-headed the movement that brought Calvary into Seventh-day AdventismÖ2 The consequences of that era are still evident in the SDA church. The pain, for many, remains real. Why, then, would anyone want to revisit today the genesis of their anger and heartache? Would it be masochistic to look back from the ridge of 2005 and review the glacier of 1980? Would the blizzard that froze so many Christian joys blow in their nostrils again, almost asphyxiating their spirits? Would the memory of relatives and colleagues who dropped into crevasses, never to be seen at church again, be too painful? Sydney Adventist Forum thought the risk was worth taking. They chose October 22 as the Sabbath to reflect on what today the senior Adventist generation calls ìGlacier View.î Fortunately, Ford himself agreed to attend and rehearse some of his memories of that event. First Presentation Approximately 250 people attended from the eastern seaboard of Australia. Unfortunately, the first scheduled speaker, Dr Norman Young, could not be present. His fifteen-page manuscript was read to the group. Attention was intense throughout the entire reading. Young, who had studied at Manchester University at the same time as Ford and taught alongside him at Avondale College, was one of four Glacier View attendees specifically nominated by Ford. It was clear from Youngís paper that he was disappointed with the outcome of Glacier View.3 He first reiterated the main points Ford thrust forward at the 1979 Forum meeting: (1) No Biblical reason for applying the so-called year-day principle to prophecy; (2) Daniel 8:13,14 refers to the little horn rather than a judgment of the saints; (3) there is no linguistic link between ìcleanseî (KJV) of Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement cleansing of Leviticus 16; (4) sacrificial blood always cleansed and accomplished atonement rather than defilement; (5) the book of Hebrews (he could have added Revelation too) clearly depicts Jesus in the very presence of the Father immediately after His ascension rather than entering beyond the inner veil in 1844. Fordís position paper at Glacier View, Young said, was a lengthy elaboration on those points. Fordís resolution of the problems lay in his proposal of an inaugural fulfilment of prophecies followed by the consumative fulfilment. Within this concept Ford demonstrated there could be recurring fulfilments, even incomplete fulfilments, culminating in the grand finale at the end of time. Ford considers this to be a legitimate method of interpretation that SDAís can embrace without abandoning everything that traditional Adventism has to offer. Young also spoke of his reluctant role at Glacier View, his assignment as one of six who formulated the Ten Point Summary. The document explained the more obvious differences between traditional Adventism and Fordís answers to the problems presented by those positions. Young initially understood the six men were to write something ìfor the non-academic participantsî at Glacier View.4 Dismayed, he now realises the document was used to axe his closest colleague. It is the stuff of nightmares. In hindsight, Young objects to the short time given to the writing of both the Ten Point Summary and the Consensus Statement. And very few attendees were involved in writing and reviewing them. All participants, Ford included, would no doubt have benefited from further discussion and prayerful reflection. Young confessed that his abiding difficulty with SDA prophetic interpretation ìis the increasing chronological gap between 1844 and the return of Jesus.î5 SDA pioneers originally forecast the gap would be a very short period. Both the date 1844 and SDA credibility become increasingly isolated as time lengthens. Church Service Ford was invited to lead the Forum group in worship. He chose to speak on his area of expertise, apocalyptic prophecy. He suggested that Daniel 8:14 was central to the book of Daniel. That is, the historical chapters depict Daniel and his companions persecuted because of their continuing loyalty to the sanctuary. And each of the prophetic visions portrays the upcoming vicissitudes surrounding the sanctuary. Some critics would say it is nothing more than a homiletic concept. Nevertheless, he displays his SDA heritage with such an emphasis on Daniel 8:14 and in so doing he demonstrates to another group of critics that he is more Adventist than they would care to admit. His sermon also highlighted the inspired re-interpretations of Old Testament prophecy. He noted that in the Olivet discourse Jesus extracted pieces of Danielís prophecies (e.g., ìthe abomination of desolationî) and applied them to His own era or immediate future. John, in Revelation, he said, draws much from OT prophecy, too, and re-interprets it in the light of a general Jewish rejection of Calvary and the Resurrection. Much of Danielís prophecies can be left behind as fulfilled by the first century AD. A truly Christian approach to prophecy should therefore be grounded in the New Testament. The inspired NT writers repeatedly appealed to OT passages to prove Jesus was the Messiah. Is it not a curious fact they never applied the year-day principle to Daniel 9:24-27, or any other prophecy for that matter? If they thought the principle was valid and applied it to Daniel 9 it would undoubtedly have precipitated a Jewish conversion to Christianity en masse. Instead, the nation rejected Jesus and the OT prophecies that heralded such a glorious future for Israel were recast. When Ford spoke of the heavenly sanctuary, heaven itself, our hearts were lifted up. Hebrews 9 is crystal clear, he said, that since His ascension there is no dividing curtain, so to speak, between Himself and His Father. (A chorus of ìAmensî). Jesus has been judged worthy. We do not wait for some investigative process to determine our eternal fate. Rest assured, Ford concluded, those who are in Christ are also judged worthy. Heaven, in a sense, has already begun. (I felt an adrenalin surge as the room erupted in sustained applause). It was vintage Ford. Afternoon Meeting Ford spoke again after lunch, as always without notes, loading memory after memory into his rapid-fire presentation. He recalled the committee that was supposed to assist him in the preparation of his manuscript for Glacier View. Almost to a man, he said, they wrote little and said less. Only one, fellow Australian Dr William Johnsson, wrote a critique of each chapter. Was it because they had nothing significant to contribute? Did they feel it was futile to offer suggestions? Were they already silenced by fear of reprisals? Since that day a miasma of distrust has wafted through SDA academia. Scholars have learned to be extremely circumspect. Ford also recalled the moment Raymond Cottrell came to him at Glacier View and with some foreboding said, ìDes, the administrators have not read your manuscript.î Cottrell may have overstated the case but it was a disturbing observation. It is a sad commentary on church leadership of the era that many were Bible dilettantes. One of the most revealing bursts of the day was when Ford disclosed the subterfuge that apparently drove Keith Parmenter, the incumbent Australasian Division president, to insist on his dismissal. The revelation may partly explain why Ford was dismissed and other scholars who held similar views were retained. John Brinsmead, brother of Robert, had evidently spun Parmenter the allegation that Ford and Robert Brinsmead were in cahoots and determined to bring the SDA church down. Added to this travesty, Ford said, was the intense pressure brought to bear on Parmenter by a group of ultra-conservative members in Australia who for two decades had criticised Fordís theology. Laurence Naden and Robert Frame, previous Division presidents, had stood their ground in defence of Ford but Parmenter had a different spine. The critics were a group of mossbacks who insisted the KJV was the only reliable Scripture, reading all kinds of Roman Catholic conspiracy theories into modern versions. Some still advocated a literal Armageddon. Most believed the heavenly sanctuary was a real building with furnishings and drapes and rooms with God confined to the Most Holy Room. More importantly, their understanding of Biblical sanctification was essentially Roman Catholic. It was a lifetime of becoming more righteous, not by an impartation of grace through the sacraments but by an impartation of righteousness through an indwelling Holy Spirit. For this reason they fought against Fordís gospel preaching that was so anti-perfectionism. Parmenter capitulated to the critics and apparently accepted John Brinsmeadís allegation without verification. All indications suggest Parmenter went to Glacier View dagger in hand. Throughout the two decades of criticism Ford treated his enemies graciously, hoping for their conversion. If someone tried to stab him in the back he would most likely say he tripped backwards and fell on the point, then shake the would-be assassinís hand, such is his Christian disposition. Today, Ford is content. He regards his dismissal merely as an open door to a wider audience. The SDA church officially rejected him but after 1980 thousands of souls around the globe found Christ as a direct result of his preaching. One response to Glacier View spoke for many a Christian: We praise God for your firm stand. Your messages have brought hope and encouragement to us. We rejoice in the gospel and the forgiveness of sin. May God bless and encourage you at this time and always.6 Final Paper Dr Arthur Patrick did not attend Glacier View but was asked to address our Forum because of his expertise in SDA church history. At the time of Glacier View Patrick was director of the Ellen G White Research Centre at Avondale College. Patrickís extensive footnotes in his paper are just as important as his interpretation of Glacier View. They provide documentation from much of the significant SDA press responses to the landmark event, both popular and academic.7 Parmenter is portrayed correctly by Patrick as one of the key figures in Fordís dismissal. He makes the observation that during Parmenterís entire eight-year presidency he never used the facilities of the Ellen White Research Centre at Avondale College and did not attend any Ellen White seminars conducted in his Division despite the fact they were initiated by the White Estate at headquarters. Parmenter, he said, also gagged the dissemination of updated views about White. He was evidently content with the traditional view of White, one of near infallibility. In other words, if she said the investigative judgment started in 1844 then it did, in his opinion, start in 1844. That mindset sat comfortably with Fordís critics and explains why Parmenter was putty in their fingers. Patrickís assessment of his church today is condensed in his words, ìWhile there is absolutely no room for triumphalism, there is a realistic glow on the Adventist horizon that presages a brighter day.î8 He makes his optimistic forecast amid some anomalies. First he asked the questions, Did the small cluster of administrators who met on 15 August 1980 [to dismiss Ford] perceive their decision meant that tradition would increasingly take precedence over the quest for the truth of Scripture? Were they aware that informed convictions of the churchís scholars were being sacrificed?9 Switching from these negatives of the past Patrick argued for optimism by listing some recent SDA scholars who have contributed to a better understanding of the issues canvassed at Glacier Viewómen such as Rolf Poehler, Fritz Guy, Alden Thompson, Kai Arasola and Ray Roenfeldt. However, it is important to ask, Are the scholars only talking among themselves? Posed in a slightly different way, Are the scholars talking a language only they understand? Patrick is well aware that there is a potent ultra-conservative voice in Adventism that is educating the masses in the pew with a syllabus akin to the 1930ís. Patrick noted a recent example of this phenomenon, citing in a footnote the Sabbath School lesson quarterly, October-December 2004. It was a series on Daniel from the Biblical Research Institute perpetuating false assumptions made in exegesis, arbitrary historical dates and disingenuous arguments using the Biblical languages. These facts raise further questions. Is the church serious about re-educating its rank and file by translating for the masses the arguments put forward by the modern scholars in the church? Or is it going to keep on popularising material that makes it a laughing stock in academia? In view of the anomalous situation we should ask, Is Patrickís optimism just whistling in the dark? Only time will tell. The real problem is that the SDA church does not have much time left before it becomes obsolete. The exterior of an old car can be repainted but it wonít run far if the engine is held together with rubber bands and chewing gum. Conclusion As Forum was dispersing for the day one fine Christian gentleman admitted to me, ìSince Glacier View Iíve attended an SDA church on one occasion only.î A former SDA minister, who was so troubled over the treatment given to Ford that it destroyed his ministry and marriage, said to me, ìIt took me twenty years to get back to an SDA church, with remarriage and a different career path along the way.î Another still had questions. ìWhy donít a group of church members,î he asked, ìinitiate the likes of a Senate Inquiry and redress the wrong that was perpetrated?î Red-hot magma still bubbles beneath his skin. However, he must accept the fact that a perfectionistic culture is disinclined to admit error. Furthermore, it finds it very hard to say, ìSorry.î One lesson from Glacier View is certainótheology questions are not answered by shooting the questioner. Theology aside, such conduct evokes revulsion because it pierces the heart of any Christian. For that reason those of us who looked back from the ridge in 2005 hope the dagger men of 1980 sought forgiveness. End notes 1 Mailgram, Mr and Mrs Watson to Neal Wilson, 8 Sept 1980 2 Lowell Tarling to Neal Wilson, 6 Sept 1980 3 Norman Young, ìA Reluctant Participant Looks Back at Glacier View,î paper presented at Sydney Adventist Forum, 22 October, 2005 4 Ibid., p.13 5 Ibid., p.11 6 Mailgram, Irwin and Hazel Wagner to Desmond Ford, 29 Aug 1980 7 Arthur Patrick, ìTwenty-five Years After Glacier View: Using the Lantern of History, Anticipating a Brighter Future,î paper presented at Sydney Adventist Forum, 22 Oct 2005 8 Ibid., p.18 9 Ibid., p.14 Materials carried in Adventist Today reflects our commitment to report on contemporary issues of importance to Adventist Church members. Adventist Today provides reliable, unfettered news reporting on events, people, institutions, and theological movements associated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, promotes a sense of connection among people who treasure both their Adventist heritage and the on-going quest for ìpresent truth,î and fosters creative conversations about how to preserve and promote the best of Adventism. This is an article taken from Adventism Today, January 16, 2006 edition. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1191 Registered: 3-2005 |
Belva, Many thanks for that very thoughtful post. You have really spent a lot of time giving us all a great summary of the issues involved. Dr. Ford was my mentor in the faith. He really presented to me the purity of the gospel for the first time. It was Ford who so cogently presented the reasons SDA's view of righteousness by faith was really the Roman Catholic view. That is why you have seen so many posts of mine so anti-Catholic as well as SDA. These two religions are so adamantly opposed to true Christianity. Other great evangelicals such as John MacArthur have pointed this out as well. Thank you Belva for a great post! SDA's foundation is truly phony! Stan | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 70 Registered: 11-2005 |
Belva -- That is an incredible article! I can especially relate to the sad indictment by Arthur Patrick: "Patrick is well aware that there is a potent ultra-conservative voice in Adventism that is educating the masses in the pew with a syllabus akin to the 1930ís. Patrick noted a recent example of this phenomenon, citing in a footnote the Sabbath School lesson quarterly, October-December 2004. It was a series on Daniel from the Biblical Research Institute perpetuating false assumptions made in exegesis, arbitrary historical dates and disingenuous arguments using the Biblical languages." I simply don't see how the Seventh-day Adventist Church can continue, and promote, a constant state of denial of these central issues. I am certain that the leadership has to be well aware that to deny these core doctrines is to also deny that the writings of Ellen White are as truthful as they have held them out to be. The question is, just like with the LDS (Mormon) Church -- How long do they continue to promote that which they know is not truth? Gilbert | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3235 Registered: 12-2003  |
Belva, thank you for sharing that article. It is very good. (And thanks to Adventist Today for publishing it!) I agree with you, Gilbert, that the church's continued denial of these central issues is illogical. The leadership DOES know the problems (even though the administrator's at Glacier View hadn't read the manuscript!). Today there is no excuse; the truth about Ellen's plagiarism and the intellecutual dishonesty in Adventist theology and scholarship are well-known. Here's how I see it (and I know this is overly simplified): the administration knows of these problems, but they are in charge of the business end of the church. They know that an ignorant laity ensures that their bread is buttered, so to speak. Hence they not only continue but intensify their teaching of Adventist dogma through the SS Quarterly, school textbooks, translating EGW for the third world, etc. Simultaneously they stress the church's "specialness" and provide the illusion of a close-knit "family" that takes care of its own, even to providing schools, jobs, etc. that keep people inside. The scholars and theologians , I believe, are more anguished. They haven't been able to write off intellectual freedom and the need for honest scholarship by focusing on the monetary benefits. In fact, my limited experience has suggested to me that many scholars and SDA intellectuals rather disdain the monetary and power pursuits of much of the administration. The problem these people face is that while their scholarship reveals irrefutable falsehoods within Adventist doctrines, most of these scholars just cannot admit the church itself is fatally flawed. Instead, they analyze and dissect Adventist beliefs, comparing them to Biblical texts, and they try to superimpose the gospelóor at least a more liberal rendering of Scripturesóover Adventism, thus redefining it. The concept of redefining Adventism was one I heard often when I worked for Adventist Today. The result of this chaos has been that individuals from all strata of the church have personally been studying, many of them seeing the truth and realizing that one can't embrace both the true gospel of God's grace and Adventism indefinitely without compromising the gospel. The fact that even with the irreconcilable contradictions of Adventist doctrines with the statements of Scripture, Adventist leaders and scholars have not been able to take the risk and admit, like the Worldwide Church of God did, that the theology is not fixable but needs to be demolished and replaced with Biblical truth, demonstrates to me the powerful spiritual hold of the Adventist deception. Even Ray Cottrell, whom I admired deeply, was afraid to publish his findings and conclusions, releasing them only very shortly before his death when their contents was already "old news". All of this makes me realize that we do not live in a spiritually neutral world. There are only two positions: in Christ, or not in Christ. A system that holds its members and leaders in bondage to fear and intellectual dishonesty is not operating in the power of the Holy Spirit. I am re-convicted that we need to pray for God to expose and break the spirit of Adventism and to release those held in bondage either to deception or dishonesty. Colleen | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 74 Registered: 11-2005 |
Stan -- do you know where I can get a copy of Desmond Ford's 900+ page paper that he presented at Glacier View? Is it available online anywhere? Gilbert | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 75 Registered: 11-2005 |
Wow! The baloney doesn't get much thicker than this. Does the author ever take time to remove his head from Ellen White's writings and study the Bible? http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-dfx.php3 | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1204 Registered: 3-2005 |
Gilbert, I have the book that Ford published. I believe it is still available. Probably through Ford's Good News Unlimited Web site you can get it, but I am not sure about online. Stan | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 74 Registered: 7-2005 |
Gilbert, the book is available for sale at Dale Ratzlaff site http://www.ratzlaf.com/Qstore/Qstore.cgi?CMD=011&PROD=1001730896 | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 76 Registered: 11-2005 |
Thank you! That looks like a pretty definitive work. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1208 Registered: 3-2005 |
Belva, I just got my Jan issue of Adventist Today and read an article on Glacier View by Arthur Patrick on Glacier View. I have to say that his article was nothing like the other comments on that email you received and posted above. Patrick just gave a whole bunch of liberal gobbledty-gook, about how much the church has learned from this history lesson (Oh-Please, where is my emesis basin?) What a lot of double talk and justification for the indefensible in this whole fiasco! I like what Robert Brinsmead said once about all these different schemes of revisionist history to justify this whole 1844 embarassment when he said something to the effect "May Robert Brinsmead and Desmond Ford be damned before we will compromise the gospel in any way! Wow, it was great to hear that kind of conviction. When I read all these liberal justifications for 1844 such as God needs to be vindicated, I just want to throw-up! Now, for a new topic on that Spectrum forum, and that is gay marriage. I can't hardly believe my eyes, but the forum lead post says that the SS lesson editor is leaving room for the fact that Genesis might be OK with gay marriage! Liberalism has clearly won the day if this is true. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3265 Registered: 12-2003 |
Speaking of liberalism winning the day, Richard listened to the sermon from Crosswalk Church (a fairly new Adventist church that meets in Loma Linda and features celebration-style worship, a young-ish congregation, and "evangelical" teaching). Their sermon yesterday was entirely about their partnering with the local Catholic church in Loma Linda, St Joseph the Worker. Here's how the partnership is working. St Jospeh's support nuns in Africa. Crosswalk has members who go and serve in an Adventist hospital located in the area the nuns serve. The nuns go out into "the bush" and, when they find people who need hospital care, they send them to the Adventist hospital with a written affidavit certifying they sent the person and that the person needs medical care. The SDA hospital takes the person in. If the hospital fee is greater than the person can payói.e. if the care costs $50.00 and the person can only pay $20.00óSt Jospeh the Worker church supplies the balance to the Adventists. And so it goes, and Crosswalk Church is really excited about their partnership. I don't think I need to explain all the ways this partnership isówell, complicated and troublesome from many perspectives... Colleen | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 79 Registered: 11-2005 |
Sometimes I have to wonder how far people are willing to go in trying to maintain a state of denial about the obvious. First I read http://www.atoday.com/36.0.html where the writer of the article "Desmond Ford and Church Reconciliation", Richard M. Davidson, self-righteously declares: "The Church has always had enlighted guidance on these subjects in the writings of Ellen White. I, along with others, have embraced these precious truths through earnest Bible study and prayer." "What makes this movement distinctive is the belief that since 1844 we are now living in the pre-Advent investigative judgement of professed believers conducted in the heavenly sanctuary, as indicated in Dan 8:14 and many kindred biblical passages. Ellen White indicated that this "correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary" constitutes "the foundation of our faith" (Ev 221 = Letter 208, 1906). This central pillar of Adventist identity and message to the world, Des Ford has rejected and continues to reject." "... pre-Advent investigative judgement of God's proffessed people -- these and many more foundational points in the Adventist sanctuary doctrine are denied by Des as unbiblical" "Since I began teaching the Doctrine of the Sanctuary class at the SDA Theological Seminary here at Andrews University (now over 15 years), I regulary conduct a special prayer session in my class when we begin to deal with issues that surround Glacier View and Ford's manuscript and continued teaching. We kneel in a special intercessory prayer especially for Des, that God may yet reclaim him for the Adventist Church, to once again preach the Gospel in its end-time "present truth" setting of the sanctuary message. I have longed for, agonized in prayer for, reconcilliation between Des Ford and the Adventist Church." After reading his discourse, I also read the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes Concerning Ellen G. White at http://www.christiancommunitychurch.us/dovenet/sda1919b.htm where the General Conference leadership discussed the questionable "inspiration" of Ellen White. He would do well to acquaint himself with those minutes, and their import. Unless he is using the "Clear Word" Bible, a review of the points Des Ford brings up should also be supported in his Bible. Nowhere in professor Richard Davidson's response does he talk about being part of the Body of Christ, or of the role of the Holy Spirit. Instead he responds with an isolationist self-serving Adventist-vision-only unique message, because "Ellen White said so", that he can't (and doesn't even try to) support from the Bible. His flimsly rationalization and attempt to position himself on ""higher ground" would be laughable if it was not so tragic. And he is a Seminary teacher at Andrews? What ever happened to testing everything by the Bible? Gilbert (Message edited by jorgfe on January 23, 2006) (Message edited by jorgfe on January 23, 2006) |
