Chapter 8

David Lin

FOR a Seventh-day Adventist minister to claim that he has new light for our people is exciting to say the least, and every Adventist interested in God's Word should investigate the validity of such a claim. The present writer has made a preliminary study of Desmond Ford's teachings based on his recorded talk of October 27, 1979, and his summary, "Daniel and the Day of Atonement," as published in Spectrum, Vol. 11, No. 2. A number of papers refuting Ford's position have also been consulted.

The first impression one gains after hearing Ford's address is that he is a high-power salesman trying to sell you his ideas by employing all the tricks of his trade. His is not the cautious approach of a scholar, but the authoritarian style of the dogmatist, using the familiar address of the man on the street. He tells you that a point he has made is "plain as the nose on your face," and that the way some people make use of Ellen White's writings "would make her hair stand on end."

He is cocksure, because he seems to feel that the thirty years' prestige he has built up will see him through any difficulty his questionable views may lead to, and most of his hearers will be gullible enough to swallow every

word he says. He apparently did not expect that such people as Ralph Larson and William Shea would take pains to check a few facts and show how he has been bluffing.

Desmond Ford speaks and writes in yeas and nays, making us wonder whether he is friend or foe. We may liken him to a man who says to his wife, "Darling, you are perfectly wonderful, but I regret that I don't love you any more. Yet don't misunderstand me--I love you just the same."

Now if his wife is in her right mind, she will put no stock in his profession of love, but will be alarmed by his expressions of estrangement. A truly enthusiastic lover just does not talk that way.

In like manner, Ford first cites an imposing array of prominent Adventists who have expressed their doubts regarding the investigative judgment. This gambit puts us on the alert: Is Ford a sympathizer of Ballenger et alii? We begin to wonder. But then he pauses to avow his loyalty to the Church. He says,

Let me state my convictions, my personal convictions, before I go any further. I believe in a pre-advent judgment with every man's destiny settled before the coming of Christ. I believe the Day of Atonement has a special application to Christ's last work as prefigured by the work in the second apartment. I believe the Seventh-day Adventist movement was raised up in 1844 by God to do a special work, and that to it was restored the gift of prophecy in the person of E. G. White.

This statement is quite reassuring; our apprehensions are dispelled, and we settle down in our pews to listen to the words of an "orthodox" Adventist preacher. We are again in a receptive state of mind, so that Ford can begin his next barrage of attacks against basic Adventist beliefs. Having affirmed his faith in the gift of prophecy, Ford now proceeds to use Ellen White's writings to "prove" that "The New Testament knows nothing about a veil in the heavenly temple." He cites a passage from her writings and says,

And please note that Ellen White here and in many other places is a rebel. The greatest rebel we've ever had among us was Ellen White. Praise God! No other Adventist writer would have dared to write some of the things she wrote. I'm glad she wrote them. . . . I marvel at the way Ellen White goes right against Adventist traditions, right against some things apparently she had written herself.

After professing faith in the gift of prophecy, Ford tries to place Ellen White on his side in opposition to Adventist traditions. She was the "greatest rebel;" therefore he is justified in being a lesser one. Moreover, she was guilty of going against some things she herself had written; therefore he can naturally do the same.

Coming back to the illustration of the double-minded husband, we must say that we are not deceived by Ford's professions of loyalty, because a truly loyal Adventist just does not talk that way. We can see that Ford's

attacks against our fundamental teachings represent his true self. All his sweet words are mere eyewash. Thus we conclude that he is not our friend, but our enemy.

The Chinese have a saying that deception is acceptable in warfare. That is true in military science. But in the war between Christ and Satan, the devil alone practices deception; Christ employs only honest tactics. He cannot deny Himself. When a professed Adventist resorts to deception to propagate "new light," we may thereby conclude that he is not sent of God, but is an emissary of the evil one. Now let us proceed to examine a few more deceptive methods employed by Ford to prosecute his warfare against the "they" Adventists, as he often calls us in his Forum talk.

We are indebted to Ralph Larson's paper, My Reply, for some examples of falsification of evidence found in Ford's presentation. Larson rightly concludes that Ford is a creator of theological fiction which meets the appetite of some readers.

In an attempt to demolish the entire structure of William Miller's calculation of Daniel's 70 weeks, Ford says, "The date of 457 B.C. for the seventh year of Artaxerxes (is) still a matter of considerable dispute." Dr. Shea points out, however, that "the date of the seventh year of Artaxerxes I is not a matter of considerable dispute. It has been fixed through four lines of chronological evidence." And then he proceeds to cite them. It is another example of Ford trying to palm off false statements on his audience under the assumption that they will not take the trouble to check on their truthfulness.

A third instance of Ford's dishonest theology is found in his treatment of Josiah Litch's interpretation of Revelation 9:15. He says: But, my friends, Josiah Litch was wrong. The day he chose to begin the prophecy was years out; he forgot about the dropping out of days in the calendar change. He didn't understand what the text was saying anyway. The text in Revelation spoke about the hour, day, month and year. It's not a period at all; it's a point and every Greek scholar in the world knows it. And The Seventh-day Adventist Commentary knows it too, so they

put a special note in the Commentary saying, "Because of difficulties in the Greek, and our smallness of space, we will not enlarge upon the problem" (laughter). Now I've caricatured it a little and hope you'll read it for yourselves. Ellen White's endorsement of Litch was not correct. Litch was wrong, absolutely wrong.

Here we have an outstanding example of falsification, bluffing, and arbitrary denunciation, employed to enhance Ford's image as an authority on theology and to downgrade Ellen White's role as a messenger of God. Deliberate falsification is evident in Ford's attempt to create the impression that The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary knows that Litch was wrong and is so embarrassed as to refrain from elaborating on it on the pretext of lack of space. Is that true? No, that is not true.

The Commentary devotes more than a full page of special comment on Revelation 9:15, totalling some 1000 words, presenting the details of Litch's interpretation, and closing with the words, "Generally speaking, the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of the fifth and sixth trumpets, particularly as touching the time period involved, is essentially that of Josiah Litch." It does not even mention the view advocated by Ford, but admits the existence of divergent interpretations in these words:

It should be made clear, however, that commentators and theologians in general have been greatly divided over the meaning of the fifth and sixth trumpets. This has been due principally to problems in three areas: (1) the meaning of the symbolism itself; (2) the meaning of the Greek; (3) the historical events and dates involved. But to canvass adequately these problems would carry us beyond the space limits permissible in this commentary.

A perusal of this passage gives us an impression quite different from what Ford tried to make it to appear. Why did he venture to make this sweeping denunciation of Litch's interpretation and seek to enlist the aid of "every Greek scholar in the world" and The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary? Because he was bent on exploding the year-day principle and putting Ellen White in the position of having endorsed an "absolutely wrong" view. The laughter which followed his remarks about The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary being embarrassed by Litch's "wrong" view reveals that his malicious caricature had the desired effect.

We must point out that for a dignified doctor of theology to stoop to such mean tactics is a denial of his sacred office, and incompatible with the spirit of true scholarship. We state further that a truly conscientious scholar is usually reluctant to employ absolutes and superlatives in denouncing the views of others, especially when he himself has nothing better to offer in their place. To say that Litch was absolutely wrong, Ford should come up with an absolutely right view; otherwise he would reveal himself to be a mere wrecker, not a builder.

Ford has prepared a book, yet unpublished, on Revelation. We presume he has therein written what he believes to be the right view on Revelation 9:15. But judging from the remarks just quoted, we can already gain a fair idea of his position. He maintains that the "hour, day, month and year" refers to a point, not to a period of time. He says, "Every Greek scholar in the world knows it." By this he implies that every Greek scholar in the world supports his view. The converse would be all who disagree with him are not Greek scholars. Here is another example of the methodology of this "great" theologian--always thinking and talking in absolutes.

But we point out that this is all that can be said of this alternative interpretation. It is an isolated point in time--that is all--a point dangling in empty space, contributing nothing to the interpretation of Revelation 9. We have checked The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, and found that it says nothing about this view because, no doubt, there isn't much to be said of it. As for "every Greek scholar in the world," neither Ford nor we have the means whereby we may effectively consult them. In the end Ford has produced no tangible evidence to prove that his own view is absolutely right.

In contrast to this view, Litch's interpretation has undergone the pragmatic test in a spectacular way, and was a positive contribution to the Millerite awakening. "Litch's prediction was a great stimulus to the missionary zeal of the Millerite movement. Years later a participant commented that it was to 'the Advent movement what the power of steam is on the machinery of the railroad locomotive. So from the eleventh day of August, 1840, the Advent cause and message, or angel, careered on its way with greater power than ever before.'" Damsteegt, P. G., Foundations of the SDA Message and Mission, 29

That is precisely why Ford is so furious in his attack. You see him slashing away at Litch and even rudely pushing down Ellen White in the process. Litch must go, and (with no apologies whatever) White too must go, Ford tells us. He makes two authoritarian assertions to prove his point:

The day he [Litch] chose to begin the prophecy was years out; he forgot about the dropping out of the days in the calendar change.

Ford's first argument is a strange one. He has just said that Revelation 9:15 speaks of a point, not of a pe

riod in time, so there really is no need to argue when this period should begin. Nevertheless, Ford claims to know the "correct" starting point for this span of time which he just said did not exist. What then is the correct date? Ford does not tell us, but simply says that Litch was "years out."

We first quote a passage from page 212 of The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia to clarify the matter of the calendar change:

The calendar currently in use in most nations, the Gregorian, is the result of a calendar reform in 1582 that corrected two erroneous suppositions of the Julian calendar, which had been in use since 45 B.C.--namely that the year contains exactly 365.25 days and that 235 lunar months exactly equal 19 solar years. That revision corrected an accumulated error of ten days and stopped the calendar from slipping farther out of line with the seasons.

With these facts in hand, we are ready to answer the question: How does the calendar change of 1582 affect Litch's interpretation? We note first that in 1582, October 4 was followed by October 15, thus adding 10 days to make up for the time slippage through the past 1627 years. That is, all dates after October 15, 1582 are corrected dates, and all dates before that date should be correspondingly shifted so as to be in step with the seasons.

Assuming that one day should be added for every 162 years (approximately), then the July 27, 1299, date Litch used for the beginning of the fifth trumpet should be updated eight days, thus bringing the end of the sixth trumpet to August 19, 1840--eight days after the historic words "provision had been made" were announced to the Sultan of Turkey by the four imperial powers on August 11, 1840.

Inasmuch as this incident marked the loss of independent power by Turkey, any political incident happening eight days later could only be a further advancement of this crucial situation--bringing Turkey's dependence on foreign imperialism to greater maturity, thereby verifying Litch's prediction more clearly. Instead of proving that Litch was absolutely wrong, this inclusion of eight days into his reckoning would take in eight more days of ripening developments to make the fulfilling of his prediction more convincing. On the other hand, Litch's failure to add eight days did not materially impair the accuracy of his prediction.

We see then that Ford has not proved that Litch was absolutely wrong. He fails to give conclusive proof that Revelation 9:15 refers to a point in time; while Litch has demonstrated that it refers to an exact calculable period, and current history has dramatically proved the correctness of his calculation. He was not "years out," but precisely accurate. And Ellen White was not mistaken in her endorsement of Litch's prediction. Yet in spite of all these facts, Ford has a way of making people believe he is right. That is why we must give him credit for good salesmanship. He has the knack of making up for his shortage of factual evidence with a spate of vehement assertions. And the power of his persuasion lies in his vehemence.

Incidentally, Ford also has the gift of entertaining his audience with an occasional play on words to impress us with his wit. Hear him run into a caper as he shifts to high gear:

Ellen White would have been burdened above all measure if she thought she was supposed to know everything about everything. We don't know anything about anything (laughter). Everything is related to everything else, so that we can't know anything about everything or know everything about anything" (laughter again). By this time we are again relaxed, and sink into our pews for another tirade

Ford's attack on Litch's interpretation of Revelation 9:15 is aimed chiefly at the year-day principle on which it is based. To endorse Litch's interpretation is to endorse the year-day principle. And since Ford's basic premise is that the year-day principle is not explicitly taught in the Bible, he feels justified in repudiating it, thereby junking all the prophetic calculations based on this principle.

Now we must begin our study of this problem by taking Ford seriously, assuming that he is a painstaking scholar searching for truth. He wants "explicit" evidence, to make sure that he will not be mistaken in his calculations. He is so honest that without an explicit statement by God that a day stands for a year in all symbolic prophecies he will not be guilty of presuming that it does. "I note that Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 do not yield the day-year principle," says Ford, "nor is it to be found contextually in either Daniel 8:14 or 9:24." Spectrum, 32. It is presumption to apply this principle without an explicit "thus saith the Lord." By his stance Ford impresses us that his is the scientific approach, and we, with William Miller, are mistaken and deluded.

But this problem is simply solved--just the way we proved Litch to be right. There are but two alternatives. In the case of Litch, we had to choose between the point and the period. In this case we have only to choose between the year-day principle and literal time. Those who take the "2300 evenings and mornings" to mean 1150 days apply this period to the desecration of the temple in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. This span of time is

about 3 years and two months, thus making of none effect the angel's words, "Shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days," and "For at the time of the end shall be the vision." Daniel 8:26, 17

Using literal time, the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation lose all significance for us who live in "the time of the end," and all the time prophecies related to Christ's first advent and the history of the Church (that is, the 3 times and a half, 42 months, 70 weeks, and 1260 days) also fall to the ground.

We conclude therefore that these symbolic time prophecies cannot refer to literal time, and the only alternative is to apply the year-day principle and see whether we get better results. William Miller's chart of the 70 weeks and 2300 days, plus Josiah Litch's calculation of Revelation 9:15 make up a convincing answer: the year-day principle works out perfectly. This test is called pragmatic, and is as "explicit" as any honest scholar would expect.

And if we use Ford's favorite tactic of calling other scholars to his aid, we can cite a formidable host of Reformers and scholars who employed the year-day principle in their study of the symbolic prophecies. Such great minds as Martin Luther and Sir Isaac Newton are on our side. Seventh-day Adventists are not alone here, and the burden of proof rests with Ford to produce a more plausible system of prophetic interpretation exclusive of the year-day principle.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Ford's chief interest is in picking Adventism to pieces, not in working out a harmonious system of theology. Some may disagree. One veteran scholar still expresses admiration for Ford in these words:

Only a dedicated Seventh-day Adventist could make statements such as these: "I fully believe in 1844 and that God raised up the Seventh-day Adventist church.

"I believe in the year-day principle. . . .

"I believe that God spoke to Ellen White miraculously. . . . Of course she has teaching authority." Spectrum, Vol. 11, No. 2, 20.

Careful analysis of this profession of loyalty (which Ford makes repeatedly) will reveal that it is worth no more than a traitor's kiss. For in the next breath Ford deals the death blow to 1844, the year-day principle, and Ellen White. And yet some will still admire him for his "intense personal dedication to truth." The thirty-nine signatories to the "Open Letter" state:

Church administration has apparently rejected Dr. Ford's willingness to cooperate in restoring church unity. We understand you would not accept his assurance to teach only that which was approved at Glacier View. Instead the impossible demand has been laid upon him to repudiate his conscientious convictions. Ibid. 62-63, italics supplied

There are many honest scholars who truly believe that Ford is willing to cooperate in restoring the church unity which he has just destroyed. They might as well expect a weasel to help restore peace and order in a chicken coop it is raiding. They also believe in Ford's assurance to teach only that which was approved at Glacier View, but he must not be demanded to repudiate his conscientious convictions. They did not consider, however, how a man can teach what he does not conscientiously believe. That too is an "impossible demand."

Yet the historical fact remains--and it should be clear to all--that for the past thirty-odd years Ford has been overtly preaching Seventh-day Adventist doctrines against his own convictions and covertly inculcating his objections against Seventh-day Adventist doctrines in the minds of his students. The Chinese definition of such a character is: "A man with honey in his mouth and a sword in his belly." His profession of conscientiousness is the honey; now watch out for the sword.

Like his forerunner, Robert Brinsmead, Ford is preparing "conscientiously" to junk every distinctive truth Adventists hold. The replacing of the "Seventh-day" with the word "Evangelical" prepares the way for abolishing the Sabbath. It is naive then, to suppose that Desmond Ford has any truly conscientious convictions. We quote William Shea's words to stress this point:

This dramatic reversal in interpretation has occurred in a period of less than two years since Ford's book on Daniel was published. When Elder Parmenter questioned Ford on this point from the floor of that conference, Ford replied that he stood by 98 percent of what he had written in Daniel. Elder Parmenter objected that the difference between Daniel and the present manuscript was considerably greater than two percent. I agree that Ford's figure represents a gross underestimation of the differences involved. If there is just a two percent difference between these two works, it surely is a critical two percent which has shifted Ford from one school of prophetic interpretation into another. Ibid., 41

This dramatic reversal in interpretation lays bare the dishonesty of this reputedly honest doctor of theology

whom many still admire. And because they have been deceived by this camouflage of honeyed professions, they are dismayed at the way the General Conference has dealt with Ford. We thank God that our church administrators are better students of human nature than the majority of our scholars. They detected a loophole in this statement by Ford: In harmony with its [consensus statement] essence as I understand it, I can gladly teach and preach such to the same extent as the majority of my fellow teachers present at Glacier View. Ibid., 77

As all can see, this and other conditional statements in his letter are very loose promises indeed, leaving him virtually unhampered to continue disseminating his errors among us. And even if we stopped up all the loopholes and worked out a water-tight agreement with him, Ford will have no scruples about breaking it. We cite an example of his failing to live up to a promise he made in public: I am not a Seventh-day Adventist by birth, but by conviction; and the moment that ceases to be so, I will hand in my credentials as an Adventist minister. (Forum talk)

But after Ford had by his 990-page paper demonstrated that he was no longer a Seventh-day Adventist by conviction and the church leaders gave him the opportunity to hand in his credentials, he refused to do so. Why? Says Ford, "My desire is to do all I can to help changes come from within." Clear enough! And the changes he wants to come from within will no doubt shift in his direction--away from Seventh-day Adventism. That will be the certain result of his promised cooperation.

Desmond Ford has quite a following among Seventh-day Adventists, even after he has been defrocked. Some of his followers call themselves "progressives" as distinguished from non-Fordite "traditionalists." We disagree with their claim to progression, because the Fordian philosophy really represents a retrogression--back to pre-Millerite theology. But if Ford thinks himself to be progressive and his followers call themselves that, we can do nothing about it. We should point out, however, that there are two classes of "progressives" among the Fordites--fast and slow ones.

By the slow ones we mean those who live in the backwoods of Australia and some remote parts in the U.S. who have not kept up with the times. They believe in Desmond Ford and will stand by 100 per cent of what he has written in his monumental work on Daniel. But because they have not heard his Forum talk and have not read his 990-page paper, they do not yet know that he now stands by only 98 per cent of what he wrote in that book, because he has made a dramatic reversal and repudiated what Shea calls the "critical 2 per cent," changing from a traditionalist into a modern "progressive." Now in order to be precise, we should call these slow followers of Desmond Ford "traditional Fordites," and the fast ones "progressive Fordites," because they actually belong to two schools of Fordite interpretation.

Now to the honest-hearted slow followers of Ford we recommend that they seriously consider whether or not they should make such fast progress. For if they stay put for a few years Ford might decide to make another dramatic about-face in his "conscientious" convictions and come back to where he started.

But that is just one wild guess about an unpredictable genius. It is more likely that Ford's followers will all catch up with his progressive pace and continue to accelerate as he repudiates more and more of what he wrote before 1979. They may eventually come to the place where they would wish they had never followed him. Because after being frightened by his charges that Seventh-day Adventists were placing Ellen White above the Bible, they hastily threw away her books and renounced Adventism, only to realize in the end that they have lost their way because they had then placed Desmond Ford above the Bible and made him their infallible guide.

Let us now point out another instance of dialectical legerdemain practiced by Des Ford to deceive the simple. After proposing that we junk the whole system of interpretation worked out by William Miller et alii, he makes haste to assure us that we will lose nothing substantial, but can still salvage much of our faith by employing the apotelesmatic principle. In Ford's thinking this wonderful principle is a magic wand. He uses it first to explode the year-day principle. He says, "But, according to the apotelesmatic principle, there is no biblical basis for the year-day principle." Spectrum, Vol. 11, No. 2, 32

Now the present writer must confess lack of acumen to understand exactly how this magic principle disproves the year-day principle. Be that as it may, we are, fortunately, much relieved by Ford's assurance that the apotelesmatic principle will also solve the problem he has just created. On this point we are indebted to Dr. Shea for a penetrating analysis of Ford's use of this magic principle:

The ultimate irony in the controversy that Ford has raised in this way is that he offers the apotelesmatic principle to the Church as the solution to the problem he sees in Daniel 8:14. It is actually his own refusal to employ

his own principle that has created this problem. This is particularly the case in two important and linked instances. In his thesis, Ford did not use what he now calls the apotelesmatic principle to interpret the prophecy of Mark 13 so that it might apply to both the generation of the apostles and our modern generation. For him, Mark 13 was intended to have occurred in the first century and the first century only. No interpretation of it, apotelesmatic or otherwise, can allow it to apply to a time beyond then. . . . This has led to the second problem not solved by the apotelesmatic principle: Ford's refusal to apply it to Daniel 8:14 in such a way as to accept the pioneers' interpretation of it. Daniel 8:14 can be applied to a preaching of the gospel at any time between Daniel's time and our time, or it can be applied to the establishment of the church in the New Earth, but it cannot be applied to an investigative judgment that began in heaven in 1844.

Thus it is Ford's failure to apply his own apotelesmatic principle to Mark 13 and Daniel 8:14 that has created the very controversy which he says he has proposed it to solve. Ibid., 42-43

You see again that Ford is not really searching for the truth, but is cunningly trying to steal it away from us. To allay our fears and give us some consolation, he creates the illusion that the doctrine of the investigative judgment still stands by virtue of the apotelesmatic principle. But upon closer inspection, the illusion fades into thin air. He has robbed us of everything.

This fact brings out the unique composition of Ford's presentations. Every thrust against our basic beliefs is invariably balanced by comforting assurances of his loyalty to Adventism. These are just so many shock-absorbers to soften the impact of his punches. At the same time, in the hands of his supporters his empty professions make useful quotations for proving Ford's dedication to the Advent cause. All these extravagant declarations have a common character of vagueness and ambiguity.

Take the words, "I fully believe in 1844, and that God raised up the Seventh-day Adventist church." This statement can be understood differently. To "believe in 1844" can mean much, and it can mean nothing. Then he says, "I believe in the year-day principle." This barefaced lie is a smoke screen typical of much of Ford's propaganda, intended to confuse his hearers and provide his admirers with favorable arguments. They can say, "Who said that Ford doesn't believe in the year-day principle? See, here are his own words in black and white."

Ford himself will deny he has lied and say, "Of course I believe in the year-day principle! I only refuse to apply it to certain prophecies in Daniel and Revelation." Ford has also said many favorable things about Ellen White, but again, they simply serve as compensators for his many negative remarks about her. The general effect and end result of all his statements regarding Ellen White is to tear down your faith in the gift of prophecy and build up your faith in Desmond Ford.

Chinese folklore abounds with stories about fox spirits who are bent on luring men into sin and ruin. The most common tactic employed by these evil spirits is to convert themselves into beautiful maidens to seduce unwary males. But their transformation is never complete--a fox is changed into a girl, yet its tail remains. So it must keep its tail hidden beneath her skirt.

Whenever you approach such a converted fox spirit, you will see a charming "phantom of delight"--a most appealing young lady. But if you are still in your right mind and will take care to examine this creature carefully, you will discover an ugly bulge beneath her skirt in the back. Then if you are bold enough publicly to unmask this evil genius, you will not hesitate to grab that woolly growth and hold it up for all to see. The fox may turn around to bite you, but you've won the game anyway.

The purpose of this paper is to grab the fox's tail and hold it up for public inspection. However, we don't claim the credit for discovering it. Other people (some of Ford's peers among them) discovered it long ago. As we have seen, Elder Parmenter first demanded of Ford an explanation for the glaring contradictions between his 990-page document and his book on Daniel published less than two years earlier. Ford was put on the spot.

How did he try to deliver himself? He said that he stood by 98 per cent of that book. Can any honest man believe that? No. This doctor of theology who is always so authoritarian in his pulpit manners couldn't get away with such a glaring lie no matter how vehemently he uttered it. All could see that it was a clumsy attempt to cover up his telltale tail. Elder Parmenter did us great service to grab it; Dr. Shea has made excellent comments on it, and this paper insists on flaunting it openly until all who still think Desmond Ford is a man of integrity will recognize his true identity.

Some may say that we are engaged in mud-slinging. No, we are engaged in a life-and-death struggle against the host of darkness. Our adversary is intent to destroy the foundations of our faith and thereby bring ruin to the remnant church on which God bestows His supreme regard. Every servant of God is duty-bound to discharge his responsibility as a watchman on the walls of Zion and sound the warning at the approach of the enemy.

On that day when each of us must render an account for things done in the body, we trust that God will not censure us for identifying a fox when we see one. And He will commend our leading brethren for driving out the foxes which are spoiling His vine.

November 25, 1981

RETURN TO INDEX