Chapter 10

CHARMING CLICHES

David Lin

A Third Analysis of Desmond Ford's "New Theology" +

THE Bible has dynamic as well as static truths. The existence and attributes of God, the nature of man, and the laws of the universe are static truths. The plan of redemption as related to the great controversy between Christ and Satan is a system of truths which unfold progressively. We call them dynamic truths, because they are in motion and connected with time. If we are to keep in step with God's providences, we must grasp these dynamic truths and recognize the waymarks of prophecy as they appear.

Many holy men of old had to do with time. Noah had a 120-year schedule to work by. Abraham was given a 400-year prophecy. Jeremiah recorded a 70-year prophecy, and when time was up, Daniel prayed for its fulfillment. Gabriel delivered to Daniel the prophecies of the three-times-and-one-half, the 70 weeks and the 2300 days. When Jesus began preaching, His message was, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand." Paul wrote, "When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son." John recorded the prophecies of the 1260 days, 42 months, and three-times-and-a-half. It behooves us to study these time periods and fully grasp their significance. They have to do with God's purpose for His church and the destiny of mankind. Only thus can we identify ourselves with God's great plan and act our part intelligently.

Desmond Ford's principal error is to drop out from the march of time. In denying the true interpretation of the 2300 days, he has joined the foolish virgins stalled at the door of the wedding hall. Like a man who has missed the train, all he can do is to mark time on the platform of static truths, denying himself the privilege of viewing God's strategic plan as illuminated by the light of the Midnight Cry. That is why the content of Ford's talks is substantially the same as sermons preached by Dwight Moody, Gypsy Smith, and Billy Graham. Though different in style, their theologies all belong to the pre-Millerite era, because the time element is absent. They can preach on the height, the depth, and the breadth of God's love, but not on its length, because they are willingly ignorant of His timetable.

+ Based on the same material as the previous chapter. See footnote, page 79.

Such self-imposed blindness is evident in Ford's sermon on "The Everlasting Gospel." He defines this term by quoting Jude 3 (RSV): "Contend for the faith which was delivered to the saints once for all time." From there he sidetracks into his favorite theme of free grace and the dangers of legalism as against antinomianism. He does not even take the trouble to read, much less to explain, the content of the everlasting gospel as proclaimed by the first angel, which is definitely based on time. To make up for his omission, we will devote a paragraph to this important theme. The text reads:

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. Revelation 14:6-7

The preaching of this message is accurately timed. The world is warned to fear God and worship the Creator because "the hour of his judgment is come." It is the everlasting gospel because it embraces the entire gospel message from beginning to end. The Creation is the beginning; the judgment is the end. Where is Christ in this picture? He is in His Sabbath, and also in the sanctuary, where the judgment is in progress. Our great High Priest is the central figure in the day of atonement, as He sprinkles His own blood on the mercy seat. Ford says a lot about the blood of Jesus, but not a word about the investigative judgment, where the blood of the Lamb of God is the decisive element. He also talks of justification which, being a forensic term, is intimately connected with the judgment. But no, says Ford, the investigative judgment is a "doctrinal oddity" invented by the Adventists to save face. Thus Ford preaches not the everlasting gospel, but one truncated by lopping off head and tail. In this sermon he says nothing about worshiping the Creator by keeping His Sabbath, nor does he mention the judgment hour which began in 1844. Since these two great truths are the only ones specified by the first angel, we are correct in saying that by lopping off head and tail, Ford has in fact cut the gospel in pieces and then thrown them all away.

On the question of Christ our substitute and our example, Ford's position shows up as indefensible. Having asserted that the humanity of Christ was virtually immune to sin, he finds it hard to answer the question, "How can Christ be our example?" He then adopts the tactic of committing himself in three steps: First a reassuring statement: "Of course, Christ is our example." Next he qualifies it: "But He is not our example primarily." And then, after some argumentation, his real answer: "Christ is not our example." Here are his arguments:

1. "If He was primarily our example, He wouldn't have died at 33; that's no example for you and me!"

2. "If He was primarily our example, we wouldn't find the Scriptures majoring on His soteriological works, His salvation works, His forgiveness of sins. You and I can't do that! His raising the dead, we can't do that!"

3. "The story of His life is nothing compared with the story of His death." Ford compares the number of pages the Bible devotes to the life and death of Jesus respectively. He uses the tadpole as an illustration: the head represents Jesus' passion story, the tail His life.

We leave it to the reader to decide on the plausibility of these arguments. (Pardon me, but that first argument is really an insult to human intelligence.) We should point out, however, that to regard either Christ our substitute or Christ our example as primary or secondary is a wrong approach. It virtually puts the two in opposition to each other. For Christ our substitute and Christ our example are in fact inseparable. "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Here the life and death of Jesus are closely integrated. For both in life and death Jesus is our example. "I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." John 13:15. "He laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." 1 John 3:16

The topic of Jesus our example is directly related to the debate over the human nature of Christ. Answering a question on this topic, Ford says: The Bible certainly teaches that Jesus was sinless in state, nature, as well as behavior. You said the right thing when you said, He took our human nature; you didn't say He took our sinful nature, because sin is no part of true humanity. Sin is an invader; sin is an intruder. God, when He made human nature, did not put sin into it. Sin has come in since. Now Jesus took human nature, that's why He was born of the Holy Spirit. That's one of the reasons. "That holy thing that shall be born of thee," it was said to Mary. And how? "The Holy Spirit shall overshadow thee." So Christ's birth was miraculous. You and I, born in the natural course of nature, were born without the Holy Spirit. That's why we are sinful, we do not have the righteous nature that the indwelling Spirit gave to Adam. You know, when Adam and Eve sinned, they lost the garment of light that was a symbol of the indwelling Shekinah. The Holy Spirit, who had controlled their behavior, then had gone. But Jesus was not born without the Holy Spirit. He was called "that holy thing." You and I were born in sin. So Scripture says, "In Him was no sin; He knew no sin; without spot or blemish; separate from sinners, higher than the heavens." He was perfectly human. You and I are inhuman to the same extent as we are sinful.

These words are sufficient to show that Ford believes that Christ took on the nature of Adam before the Fall, which is different from our fallen natures. The question follows: "How could He be our example?" Ford fails to face up to this question. He sidesteps the issue by asserting that Christ is not our example primarily. Thus he still admits that Christ is our example. But the fact is, the Christ he describes could not be our example at all. His assumption of a nature radically different from ours would defeat the very purpose of the incarnation. For then the Bible could not say that He was "in all things" (in every way, cf. NEB, NIV) made like unto His brethren.

If Christ was not made in every respect like other human beings, then He would be mocking us by saying, "Follow me." If He in His earthly sojourn enjoyed any spiritual advantages over other men, then He would have forfeited the right to be called the "Son of man." His encounter with the devil in the wilderness would have been a mock temptation, and His victory a mock victory, because He ran no risk of failure. Thus, when we are brought before God's judgment bar, we would be able to say, "Lord, you don't know how hard it is for a fallen human being to live in this world. If you were in our position and had to cope with life's difficulties under our circumstances, you wouldn't be sitting on that judgment seat." But no, we won't be able to talk that way to our Lord. For the Father "hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man." John 5:27. The Bible tells us that He is "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" and "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15. "Wherefore in all things (in every way) it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest." Hebrews 2:17

Desmond Ford says, "Jesus took human nature; that's why He was born of the Holy Spirit." This is an erroneous statement in that it confuses the two natures. The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit had to do with Christ's divine nature, not His human nature. Said Gabriel to Mary, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35. Then this Son of God called himself "the Son of man" by virtue of the body of flesh He received from the virgin Mary, as it is written, "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman." Galatians 4:4

As for the term "that holy thing," it cannot be used to prove that Jesus possessed a supernormal human nature. For in the Bible the word "holy" is in many instances applied to other men who were not in their natures different from ordinary human beings. In this domain the theologian can easily slip into many pitfalls. And Ford does not realize that he is dangerously close to the papal error of the Immaculate Conception. This Catholic dogma holds that in order to provide an immaculate womb for Jesus, Mary herself was born immaculate. Then how about her mother, and her grandmother? If we followed this reasoning to its logical conclusion, the whole line of Jesus' maternal ancestry should all be immaculately conceived. And what is the significance of this dogma? It minimizes the power of the Holy Spirit because it makes Mary's womb--female heredity--the primary source of holiness for "that holy thing," Jesus Christ. The Bible does not teach that Mary was different in nature from other women; hence her virginity had no power in itself to cause the human nature of her child to be in any way different from that of other human beings. To say that Mary had to be immaculately conceived in order to give birth to an immaculate baby, is to say that Christ is holy because Mary was holy, thus confusing the natural with the spiritual, whereupon Mary can rightfully claim to be "mother of God." That is as blasphemous as blasphemy can be. The Holy Spirit is totally eclipsed by a super goddess who is higher than God Himself. That is where this teaching of a made-to-order sinless human nature of Jesus leads. "Ave Maria" drowns out "Hallelujah."

Ford will no doubt deny that he believes in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but his teaching on the nature of Christ is really a close kin to it, in that it confuses the human and the divine natures of Jesus Christ, causing him to make the following statement: The cross of Calvary reminds us that we murdered our Creator; the teaching of the gospel is to convince us all of deicide--murder of God--and suicide, because to kill God is to kill the source of our own life. Such a daring foray into holy precincts may perhaps pass for the only new thing in Desmond Ford's "new theology."

Ellen White, though lacking formal theological training, was always careful to avoid such dangerous theological pitfalls in her teachings on the nature of Christ. She made these observations on the blending of the two natures in Christ: The Godhead was not made human, and the human was not deified by the blending together of the two natures. Selected Messages, Book 3, 131

Man cannot overcome Satan's temptations without divine power to combine with His instrumentality. So with Jesus Christ, He could lay hold of divine power. He came not to our world to give the obedience of a lesser God to a greater, but as a man to obey God's Holy Law, and in this way He is our example. . . .

The Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what a God could do, but what a man could do, through faith in God's power to help in every emergency.

It was not God that was tempted in the wilderness, nor a God that was to endure the contradiction of sinners against Himself. Ibid., 140 When we keep this distinction of the two natures in mind, we will not fall into the error of calling Mary the "mother of God," or say that we "murdered God." Nor will we attribute supernatural powers to the virgin's womb and imagine the human nature of Jesus was different from ours.

The merits of Jesus Christ inhere in the fact that He overcame sin and redeemed Adam's failure under conditions far more trying than Adam's. For He took on human nature after it had fallen and undergone more than

4000 years of dissipation and degeneration. But the more trying the circumstances, the more meritorious His great feat is proved to be. To win the game of life in our behalf and as our example, He must abide by all its rules. And in order to qualify as Champion of our race, He must endure greater hardships than any mortal can know, deriving His strength through the only channel open to us all--the channel of persistent prayer and Bible study. All these considerations require that Jesus start out with not a whit more "capital" than what each of us must start with--a fallen nature.

From Mary's womb Jesus received a body of ordinary stature and appearance, so that Judas had to give His captors a sign--the traitor's kiss--to identify Him among His disciples. And before Jesus met the tempter in the wilderness His physical stamina was strained to the limit in a forty-day fast. Gnawing pangs of hunger told Him that He was as frail as any child of Adam, and just as dependent on His daily bread, deprived of which He was now almost dead. Under such extremely trying conditions, Jesus confronted the adversary. The devil challenged Him to prove that He was the Son of God by working a miracle to relieve His hunger, but the meaning of the Scripture Jesus quoted is--You doubt that I am the Son of God; I know I am the Son of man, and as man I will live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, to demonstrate how all men can live and overcome through faith in God's written Word. Thus Christ revealed the truth that "the just shall live by faith." Through those grim days of fasting He ignored the clamoring of fleshly appetites and found pleasure in the Word of God and unceasing prayer. By His own experience He proved the truthfulness of His words, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." With His own example He taught us to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness," trusting God to give us our daily bread.

That is how Christ imparts strength to His followers. He teaches us to draw our weapons from God's armory--make the Bible our arsenal. In answer to every attack of Satan Christ countered with "It is written." That was His established practice, always turning to the Word of God for an answer. When He said to His disciples, "Follow Me," He wanted us to learn this tactic and enter fully into the spirit of His consecration. In a word, to live in closest unity with Him. He left on record these sayings to help us catch the contagion of His zeal:

I must be about my Father's business. Luke 2:49

My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. John 4:34

I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Luke 12:50

To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. John 18:37

I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak, and I know that his commandment is life everlasting. John 12:49-50

This last line comes very close to us. The Lord of life is talking like a human mortal, and seems to forget that He is Himself "the resurrection and the life," for He is thrilled to think that He as the Son of man has the honor to execute His Father's will. He exclaims, "I know that his commandment is life everlasting!"

It was for us He said those words. For He knew that every time we thoughtfully repeat them, the power which attended His ministry will also vitalize our souls, so that we can exclaim with Paul, "whereunto I also labor, striving according to the working which worketh in me mightily." And every child of God He brings to glory will utter these words with all the enthusiasm He first put into them: "His commandment is life everlasting." Glory to God!

These precious sayings bring out one basic truth: perfection cannot be sought for its own sake, but is attained only through lifelong devotion to the cause of God. Jesus knew what He was fighting for, and nothing could turn Him from His purpose. His burning passion was to finish His assigned task--"My Father's business," "the will of God," "His work," "His commandment," and "the truth." It was in pursuit of these objects that He set us the example of a perfect servant.

The Bible term for "human nature" is "flesh," or more graphically, "flesh and blood," often placed in antithesis to "spirit," e.g., "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." Wherever this term is used in the Bible with reference to human nature, it refers to the nature we now possess. And whenever it is applied to Jesus, there is no indication that it undergoes a change of meaning. When it says, "The Word was made flesh," no modifier is added to make it read "holy flesh," or "purified flesh," or "sanctified flesh." Therefore we are correct in taking this verse to mean that Christ took on the human nature which all men have in common. Another text emphasizes the identity of Christ's human nature with ours in these words: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." Hebrews 2:14. The apostle John made an issue of this truth when he wrote, "Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist." 1 John 4:3

Ford's sermon on the Antichrist ignores this important text, but quotes 1 John 2:22, "He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." There are many professed Christian churches which do not deny the Father and the Son, but they say that Christ is come not "in the flesh," but in holy flesh. This error, which is distinctive of antichrist, Desmond Ford has incorporated into his theology. In his talk on antichrist he tried to prove that it was "legalism" (which he habitually uses to refer to Adventism).

In the post-Glacier View question-answer program Desmond Ford spoke of his repeated warnings to the leading brethren about a coming storm over the sanctuary question. In the end it turned out that he himself made this forecast come true. We have discovered, moreover, that Ford's hurricane came close to sweeping away not only our sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment, but also our teachings on the Antichrist, the Incarnation, obedience to God's law, Christ our example, and the third angel's message. No wonder that when he mentioned the Adventist "package deal," he specified only three items: the Sabbath, the Second Advent, and our health doctrines. But calling to mind his tirades against "legalism," we are prepared to hear him abolish the Sabbath some day; and what he has said about Christ originally scheduled to return in the first century gives good grounds for postponing it another twenty centuries. Then what is left of our "package"?

It is now clear that Desmond Ford is bent on destroying Seventh-day Adventism. But because truth is not on his side, he is doomed to fail. We know he is a learned man, but no amount of learning can turn a single error into truth. How is it then he has such a following? It is because he artfully mingles truth with error. He says many pleasant things about the cross of Christ and His atoning sacrifice. His fertile mind turns out some charming clich‚s which have a way of sticking in the memories of his listeners after all other remarks have faded. He intersperses his attacks against "legalism" with brief compensating quotations, such as "O, how love I thy law!" But in the end it is his vehement blasts against basic Adventist truths that leave most lasting impressions, and people go away repeating, "You can't be saved by any good deed; you can't be lost by any bad one," and, "It is easier to be saved than to be lost."

Many people believe in Desmond Ford because they are not well grounded in the teachings of God's Word. We note that one adult participant in the above-mentioned extemporaneous question-answer program asked Ford in all sincerity when the millennium will begin, and it was apparently the first time she learned that it would begin at the Second Advent. This lady happened to be an Adventist (we suppose) residing in Takoma Park. Too many people don't take time to study the Bible themselves, but simply believe everything the preacher says, because he is learned and eloquent. We must remember God's injunction: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20

March 18, 1982

RETURN TO INDEX