David Lin

A Fourth Analysis of Desmond Ford's "New Theology" + + Based on the same material as a previous chapter. See footnote, page 79.

BY this time we have become familiar with a favorite tactic employed by Desmond Ford in his efforts to undermine basic Seventh-day Adventist beliefs: He reasons from both sides of the fence. We first encountered this in his Forum talk, where he tried to overthrow Josiah Litch's interpretation of Revelation 9:15. His arguments were: (1) The text refers to a point in time, not to a period; (2) The time Litch began his calculation of this period was "years out."

These two arguments are contradictory. If Revelation 9:15 indeed refers to a point in time, then there is no sense in arguing when the period should begin; and if it is a period, then the assertion that it is a point is false. This inconsistency illustrates Ford's arguing from both sides of the fence. It reveals that Ford has no definite convictions as to what is truth. He is bent only on disproving the truth, and would grasp at any argument serving his purpose, with no regard for consistency. We don't think he is suffering from insanity, but his mode of reasoning is definitely schizophrenic.

A second example of his ambivalence is found in Ford's position on the year-day principle. He maintains that it is "not explicit in Scripture." Hence he feels justified in junking all our prophetic calculations based on that principle. Then he will jump over the fence and argue about when the 2300 and 1260 years should begin. With a show of authority he refers to his book on Daniel and his method of giving these periods a staggered beginning and a staggered ending. Evidently Ford believes in the year-day principle and he does not.

Lest anyone should think that we are making a mountain out of a molehill, we will tabulate a few examples of Ford's schizophrenic reasoning to show that it is a habitual practice. We list eight more sets of contradictory arguments under "pro" and "con" headings:

(3) Pro: "The veil in Hebrews 6:19 refers to the second veil."

Con: "The New Testament knows nothing about a veil in the heavenly sanctuary."

(4) Pro: "Christ entered the Most Holy Place (within the second veil) directly upon His ascension."

Con: Away with "heavenly geography . . . celestial furniture . . . books, angelic witnesses" and all such "trappings." Comment: The claim that there is a Most Holy Place in heaven is necessarily based on "heavenly geography." Evidently Ford himself cannot very well dispense with what he ridicules.

(5) Pro: "Ellen White had a vision of the Father and Son going into the Most Holy Place."

Con: "The Bible doesn't teach anything about the Son being separated from the Father for 1800 years, with one in the Most Holy Place and one in the holy place, and in 1844 there was a union."

Comment: The "pro" statement proves that Ford was aware of the fact that Ellen White saw both Father and Son go into the Most Holy Place. Yet in the same breath he fabricates a false vision: the Father and Son separated for 1800 years and then uniting in 1844, which is not in the vision, and is thus a false charge.

(6) Pro: "There are some that think this is God's way of drawing our attention to the Most Holy Place,

Con: rather than trying to give a demonstration of a heavenly change in geographical location, which is impossible in view of the omnipresence of God."

Comment: Ford apparently agrees with the "some" that think . . ., then he argues that "a heavenly change in geographical location is impossible in view of the omnipresence of God." Here Ford creates a difficulty for himself, for if he can use the omnipresence of God to deny a change in geographical location, he must also deny any location of God whatsoever. He has really proved too much, for he believes God is in the Most Holy Place.

(7) Pro: "In 1844 God raised up a people to call attention to the Most Holy Place."

Con: The investigative judgment (closely connected with Christ's entry into the Most Holy Place) is a "face- saving device." Comment: Ford pictures God as resorting to a "face-saving device" to draw attention to the Most Holy Place--basing a truth on a false premise. Does God ever do that?

(8) Pro: Ford offers the apotelesmatic principle as a solution to the Daniel 8:14 problem.

Con: The apotelesmatic principle fails to solve the Daniel 8:14 problem because Ford says it applies to every imaginable thing except Christ's entry into the Most Holy Place in 1844.

(9) Pro: God originally intended for Christ to return in the first century.

Con: The Antichrist of prophecy points to a personage yet to come. (cf. Ford's doctoral thesis written at Manchester University.) Comment: Thus Ford creates an anomaly: God planning for Christ to return in the first century and Antichrist to appear twenty centuries (or more) later.

(10) Pro: Ford devotes forty pages in his MS lauding Ellen White, but

Con: ninety pages of the same MS concentrates on overthrowing what she wrote regarding the sanctuary truths, thus trying to prove that what she wrote was false and that she was not a prophet.

Now we ask you, our readers, to examine the evidence presented above and draw your conclusions. Have we falsely charged Ford? Has he not laid bare his own dishonesty? Yes, indeed! O Error, thou hast destroyed thyself!

Ford takes advantage of the fact that most people have not studied biblical languages and chronology, and tries to get away with false arguments simply by bluffing. His academic awards, his prestige as a theologian, plus the earnest intonation of his voice and his "conscientious" attitude all serve to convince listeners that he can't be wrong. But what does Christ say? "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." How? By examining the content of Ford's talks. Here we present a passage in which he makes three false statements in less than three minutes:

It is not a biblical datum, but it is a providential provision. Insofar as when the parousia--the coming of Christ--was delayed, then what could have fulfilled in days is now fulfilling in years. . . . As for 457, there's no possible way of proving that as the beginning of the 2300 days; it's quite impossible. It never says in Ezra 7 that the decree of 457 was to restore the city. It had to do with the temple. In Ezra 6:14 it puts that among the temple decrees. The one who gave the decree to restore the city was Cyrus, and that wasn't in 457. I pointed this out in my Daniel Commentary. I made it very clear that 2300 days should have a staggered beginning and a staggered ending, not a precise one. I quoted Taylor Bunch, that we must begin this period in 536.

So the year-day principle was a providential datum. Daniel 9 doesn't really use it. The word used for "week" just means a "seven," and all the early scholars in the early church and modern scholars agree it means in this place seven years. They never used the year-day principle. It's not saying, "Seven days--now turn them into years."

Ford states, "The year-day principle is not a biblical datum, but a providential provision. Insofar as when the parousia--the Second Coming of Christ--was delayed, then what could have fulfilled in days is now fulfilling in years." We ask, Is this explanation a biblical datum? Is it explicit in Scripture? No. Ford gives no scriptural proof that "what could have fulfilled in days is now fulfilling in years." Nor does he say what it was that could have fulfilled in days. We presume it was the parousia, and he refers to the 2300 days. If Christ could have returned 2300 days after His ascension, that would have been in October A.D. 37. Was that possible? And how is it now fulfilling in years? No answer.

Since this thesis is not explicit in Scripture, perhaps it receives some support from non-Adventist theologians, whose opinions weigh much with Ford. He says that no non-Adventist theologian has ever been impressed by our doctrine of the investigative judgment. Then pray tell, are they impressed by his thesis of the "providential provision?" Mark you, this is not an invention of ignorant Adventists, but the brainchild of a noted Adventist theologian. Surely his theory should make some impression with non-Adventist theologians. But no, we fear not. Because it is not much different from the "face-saving device" which they have already rejected. Ford has simply picked it up, labelled it a "providential provision," and given it back to us for our consolation. If non-Adventist theologians were to be consulted for an appraisal, they would no doubt call his explanation a second-hand reconditioned face-saving device, definitely inferior to the original one because the first half of the proposition is wholly fallacious--2300 days cannot possibly fit a first-century parousia. Here our conclusion is summarized:

The "providential provision" theory is not explicit in Scripture.

- No non-Adventist theologian has ever been impressed by it.

- It is at best a reconditioned, inferior face-saving device.

- It is a vague hypothesis without any basis in calculable figures and historical facts.

- Desmond Ford is absolutely wrong.

Ford says, "It never says in Ezra that the decree of 457 was to restore the city . . . The one who gave the decree to restore the city was Cyrus." Here Ford is either ignorant of the facts or is purposely telling a lie. Whichever happens to be the case, his image as a noted Adventist theologian loses much of its luster.

To those who imagine that this polemic war is for scholars only, may we point out that it is for laymen as well, who should have discovered by now that it does not take much learning to detect the glaring fallacies and inconsistencies in Ford's new theology. As for this particular question, all you need to do is to open the Bible to Ezra 1 and read Cyrus's decree. Is there any mention of restoring the city? No, not a word. Only an edict to rebuild the temple. Mark Ford wrong on this point. Then turn to Ezra 7:25-26. Here Artaxerxes empowers Ezra to "set magistrates and judges . . . And whosoever will not do the law of thy God and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment." Thus the ruling power of God's people in Jerusalem is formally restored. Desmond Ford is again wrong. Seventh-day Adventists are right.

Ford says, "So the year-day principle was a providential datum. Daniel 9 doesn't really use it. The word used for 'week' just means a 'seven,' and all the early scholars in the church and modern scholars agree it means in this place seven years. They never used the year-day principle. It's not saying, 'seven days--now turn them into years.' "

Again, Ford is either a poor Hebrew student or is deliberately trying to palm off a false statement on us. But even laymen who have never studied Hebrew can check up on him. Is it true that the word used for "week" in Daniel 9 just means "seven"? No. That is not true. Go to Young's or Strong's Analytical Concordance and look up "week." You will find that it occurs six times in Daniel 9 as Shabua. It occurs twice in Daniel 10:2-3 as "I Daniel was mourning three full weeks . . . till three whole weeks were fulfilled." Then look up "seven." The Hebrew word given is Sheba or Shibah.

Note that the vowel marks of these two words are not only different from Shabua, but Shabua has the additional consonant Waw. The Hebrew for "week," and "seven," are related but different words which are not used interchangeably in Scripture. They are two distinct words purposely jumbled together by this unscrupulous scholar who is bent on refuting the truth of the third angel's message. Then after he has uttered his lie, he proceeds to enlist the support of all the early scholars and modern ones as well. What do they teach? He says, "They agree it means in this place seven years." Good enough! That clinches the year-day principle. Ford has fallen into the pit he has dug.

Thus we have seen how Ford can blandly utter three falsehoods in a row within less than three minutes. We have also shown how a layman can expose his lies and sharpen spiritual scent, learning to "try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1

Desmond Ford quotes this clich‚: "All are right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny." He explains that here "all" denotes three schools of prophetic interpretation: the preterist, futurist, and historicist schools.

Ford is very tolerant, saying that every prophecy can have three applications. "It can fit here, and here, and here. It fits all three." But we are mainly interested in our Adventist position. We are historicists, and are flattered to know that we too are right. But no, Ford corrects us, "Adventists are wrong." What? But you've just said that all are right in what they affirm. No, Ford insists that Adventists are wrong in a number of respects. To be precise, we should revise the axiom to read:

"All except Seventh-day Adventists are right in what they affirm." Now we come to the second clause: "All are wrong in what they deny." Fordism claims to be a school of thought in its own right. Let us apply this axiom: Ford is wrong in what he denies, and since he denies the basic beliefs of Adventism, he must be wrong. "No," he says, "I am right." Again, in deference to this noted theologian, we must revise our axiom to read

"All except Desmond Ford are wrong in what they deny."

Thus Ford's clich‚ is improved and perfected. Though we are a bit peeved at his lack of academic tolerance toward Adventists, we can at least claim to be more exact in our rhetoric than he.

Almost two years have passed since Glacier View, and we are in a position to make some assessments. In the first place, was the meeting warranted? Now that we have analyzed some of Desmond Ford's teachings, it is clear that our leading brethren took him too seriously. That is, they assumed that his claim to "new light" might be valid. But now we see that Ford has no truly honest convictions in the sense we understand that term. His teachings are an incongruous mess of falsehoods aimed at destroying the Advent faith. In order to decide on the worth of his views, a much smaller number of investigators working over a longer period of time would have produced more satisfactory results than a large number of investigators skimming the surface for just a few days. Ford himself observed that most of those who came to Glacier View had not thoroughly studied his manuscript. And here we can get a clue to Ford's strategy in his war against Seventh-day Adventism.

In the first place, the decision to give Ford six months to prepare a manuscript gave him a great advantage. Practically speaking, his Forum talk on October 27, 1979, contained sufficient evidence of what he really believed, and the leading brethren could have based their decision on it and taken action, thus saving our cause the extra outlay in funds and heartaches.

Of course, we understand how our leading brethren felt about dismissing such an influential worker. Since they thought of it as a loss to our denomination (when in fact he had shown himself to be a destructive factor), the policy at the time was to "act redemptively" and try to save a fellow worker. On the other hand, Ford's strategy during that incubation period was to (1) extend his influence over as many Adventist congregations as possible, and (2) prepare a ponderous manuscript to swamp his investigators. Developments prove this observation to be correct.

For all practical purposes, a 100-page document would have sufficed to present Ford's views. But it would not have been to his advantage to let all participants get a comprehensive grasp of his arguments, for he knew that many defects would show up under close scrutiny. The best way then was to inundate them with a flood of words. Such a bulky document could by its very size discourage church administrators, making them feel not equal to the task, and inclined to take a back seat and let Ford's peers tackle the job.

The present writer must confess ignorance of how the consensus document actually came into being. But anyone can see that to write such a document and then put it through a vote in an assembly of 120 men within four days is a thorny task. In fact, even the need for such a document is open to question. Must we recompose a new statement of our beliefs every time they are challenged? Anyhow, here Ford thinks he made the greatest gain. He points out that though the Consensus Document condemned his manuscript, yet it incorporated some of his major views. He poses as the epitome of doctrinal comprehension and congratulates the brethren for having made such a great "advance" as to be "miles ahead" of previous commitments. But not all administrators were aware of this "advance." One was chagrined when he learned of it and said, "I wouldn't have voted for it if I had known that!" Ford fairly chuckled as he remarked, "They're not used to looking for such things."

Thus we see how pro-Ford scholars took advantage of the rush to get out a consensus document and exerted their influence to railroad a hastily considered version through before all delegates were aware of what it actually contained. In other words they pulled a "fast one" on the administrators. But pro-Ford scholars and Ford himself also had an unpleasant surprise when the General Conference Committee asked him to hand in his credentials. They reproached Brother Wilson for having said Ford was not "on trial." But obviously, after Glacier View, our leading brethren saw the need to rid the camp of an accursed thing. They were probably alarmed more by the widespread defection of pro-Ford pastors and congregations than by his doctrinal aberrations. Anyhow, the decision was made.

The game ended in a draw. Both sides gained something and lost something. The majority of scholars complained of having been used. The administrators, on the other hand, realized that pro-Ford scholars had stolen a march on them. Ford smarted from the loss of his credentials, but gloated over his success in having "pulled" the brethren over so far.

We on the sidelines trust that the majority of our leaders, workers and laity accept only the Bible as their creed, and are not bound by the Consensus Document or even the Dallas Statement of Beliefs, to which Ford points

with satisfaction as having shifted in his direction. For it is silent on the two apartments. Who knows in what direction it will shift in the next revision? All who tamper with the truth will have to answer for it before God's judgment bar. But we will continue to tell the world that in 1844 Christ our High Priest entered the Second Apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and the investigative judgment has begun. That is the message delivered to us by God, and we will proclaim it. Woe be to him who would stop us!

The name of Desmond Ford stands for an unprecedented crisis in the Advent movement. The tragic results of nurturing this apostate for so many years are manifest in a great falling away among our people, especially in Australia. It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that the harm done to our church by Ford is greater than the combined effects of all past apostasies, because of the duration and scope of his influence, and because many of his supporters are still entrenched in our institutions. Every truly dedicated Seventh-day Adventist must take up the work of disinfecting the church. Let no one think it is not his business. It is our Father's business, and every true child of God must make it his own. Let us uphold the hands of our leaders in taking resolute action against all teachers of falsehood. Now is the time to obey our Master's injunction to pluck out the right eye and cut off the right hand if they offend, and cast them from us for the sake of survival. Now is no time to talk about letting the tares grow with the wheat, which parable has to do only with members who are not living in open sin. The offending "eye" and "hand" represent workers in responsible positions blatantly teaching false doctrine and poisoning the minds of thousands of our people. Let the youth in our schools and members in our churches stand up in bold protest against teachers and pastors who continue disseminating Fordian errors after our church leadership has clearly pointed them out. We must be so articulate as to create an overwhelming consensus to drown out the voices which are still trying to speak for Desmond Ford. Now is the time for us to glow with the zeal which prompted the Lamb of God to vent His wrath. Have we ever seen a lamb get angry?

Now is the time again to sweep God's house. We will not entreat false teachers like Ford to remain at their posts and hold their erroneous views "in abeyance and not discussed unless at some time in the future they might be found compatible with the positions and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church." We don't need teachers who will remain silent on such important subjects as the sanctuary service and the investigative judgment. We need, yea, God needs men and women who are so burdened and on fire with the message that nothing can stop them from preaching the Heaven-sent warning to "fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come." That is the everlasting gospel, and the angel flying in the midst of heaven is in charge of it. Nobody--no matter how learned and influential he may be--is going to stop it. And no matter how unlearned and unnoticed we may be, if we give ourselves wholly to God to spread this message, He will give us the power to do it.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is unique in that it is blessed with the honor of God's presence. Even as Moses prayed, "Wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? Is it not in that thou goest with us? So shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth." Exodus 33:16. Moses knew what he wanted. He coveted only one favor--the continual presence of God, and pleaded earnestly until the Lord graciously granted his request. In like manner let us plead today. For God is a rewarder of all who diligently seek Him. And what is the reward? It is the honor of His presence. There is no greater boon. Paul aspired to it in these words: "I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ." Indeed, the value of this reward--the abiding presence of God--is so exceeding precious, that in contrast all else appears as worthless dung. Then let us strive for this reward, and our Father will bestow it, for it is His pleasure to be with His people, even as our Lord has promised, "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him . . . and we will come unto him and make our abode with him." John 14:21-23. This experience is a personal one, and also a corporate one. For God always has a people He recognizes as His own. As indicated in this text, they are those who have His commandments and keep them. And what does He do in return? He loves them and abides with them. This love is more intimate than His love for the world in general. For therein is realized the closest rapport between Christ and His own, even as He has said, "I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." John 17:9. Fellowship with God is what Moses yearningly sought; we will also long for it when the Holy Spirit reveals to us the magnificence of Jesus.

Note that God's relationship with His people is manifest in two ways: (1) their obedience to His commandments and (2) His communicating with them through His Spirit. Christ prayed, "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world. . . . I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me and they have received them." Yes! Communication between God and His own--this is the mark of our sonship. It was so in Christ's day; it is so in our day. God's people still keep His commandments, and God still communicates with them.

The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire . . . out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee . . . For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it? Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? Deuteronomy 4:12, 36, 32-33

The same may be said of God's remnant church today. Did ever people receive so many visions and instructions as the Seventh-day Adventist church? Did ever people rejoice under such a flood of light? Wherein shall it be known that we have found grace in God's sight? Is it not in that He communicates with us and is among us? So shall we be separated from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.

In warfare, a battle is lost when the enemy succeeds in cutting our line of communication. That is why Satan attacks God's messenger unremittingly. He wants us to lose faith in the Testimonies and break our connection with God. We must resist his every inroad.

The fact that God has communicated directly with the Seventh-day Adventist church places us under solemn responsibility. We are to present Christ to the world as "the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God." The testimonies of His Spirit and His holy Sabbath comprise the sacred legacy which distinguishes us as God's people. On Sabbath--the day of His appointing--only those who observe it are prepared to respond to His knock and let Him in. They alone are privileged to enjoy the feast He provides in the gift of prophecy. Sunday-keepers lag behind by one day, always missing the divine appointment, and like the virgins arriving late, are stalled at the door which is shut and no man can open. They are strangers to the joy of supping with Jesus.

Here we see an analogy with the scene described in a vision wherein those who failed to follow Jesus by faith into the Most Holy Place were bowed before an empty throne, and "Satan appeared to be by the throne trying to carry on the work of God." Early Writings 56. Some may think that this vision stigmatizes other churches. But if we believe it is of God, we should recognize it as His portrayal of modern church history. It is in accord with the second angel's message, which calls the churches "Babylon" who reject the Advent message of 1844. This sharp cleavage between those who serve God, and those who serve Him not, is the result of their own choice. The word of God is positive on this point. All who would cover up this distinction for sake of improved public relations will befuddle their philosophy of history and lose their bearings. This reasoning led Ford astray in his interpretation of Antichrist and Babylon, and some of our scholars are also ready to reject this vision in exchange for worldly approbation. Says Jesus, "They have their reward." But we will hold on to the truth as God has given it.

About a century ago some of our publishing men agitated for a popularly oriented editorial policy--to have less said about the distinctive truths of our message. What was God's reply? The Salamanca vision. It warned us against such a trend. What God wants of us is not popularity, but peculiarity. Not in the sense that we are to be a society of odd fellows, but that we should lift high the banner of "the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus." These distinctive points of our faith have a mysterious way of drawing the honest in heart to Christ, even as He has told us, "My sheep hear my voice: `Come out of her, my people!'"

April 30, 1982

RETURN TO INDEX