Chapter 9

David Lin

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

DESMOND Ford states that Ellen White, in writing on the sanctuary in her book The Great Controversy, copied entire passages from Uriah Smith, including an error. What was it? Ford says: Uriah Smith taught that when an animal is sacrificed, the blood went, for the common people, into the holy place and registered there the sin. Now that never happened for the ordinary person. It only ever happened if the High Priest sinned or the whole congregation. But Ellen White has even copied that error.

Now we turn to The Great Controversy, 418, for the passage in question. Here we find no mention either of the high priest, the congregation, a ruler, or of the common people (the four categories listed in Leviticus 4), but simply the term, "repentant sinner," which obviously can represent the high priest. Here we see a conscious attempt of the writer to simplify and generalize the topic so as not to burden the reader with too many details. After describing how the sacrificial blood was sprinkled before the veil, Ellen White continues:

By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary. In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place; but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying: "God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation." Leviticus 10:17. Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary.

+ Based on material in four cassette recordings dated 3/2/1979; April 1980 Radio Interview; 9/6/1980; and Part I of 3/7/1981. Quotations in this paper are not separately indicated.

Note again the use of "the penitent" as a general term, and especially the remark that "in some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place; but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest." This particular applied to the ruler and the common people who sinned. These points make it clear that the writer was aware of the fact that the blood of the sacrifice offered by the common people was not taken into the holy place. We see here that Desmond Ford is just trying to pick bones in a piece of tofu (bean curd), as the Chinese put it.

If Ellen White indeed copied this passage from Uriah Smith, we have no objection, because we are chiefly interested in having the truth, of which the ultimate source is the true Light which lighteth every man

Jerry Fuller posed this question to Ford: "In your opinion, what did happen in 1844?" Here is Ford's reply: In 1844 God in His providence raised up a people to warn that the world was going to get worse, and that we need to get ready for the second coming of Jesus. He raised up a people to draw attention to the sanctuary where there were the emblems of how to get ready for Jesus' coming; to look at the law and see that it condemns us, to look at the sacrifice and the blood and the priesthood and realize that a right relationship to those saved us, even though we were faulty, imperfect, erring in speech and action. So God raised up a people to draw attention to the Most Holy Place where the emblems of law and gospel were found. That's what happened in 1844.

This paragraph is an interesting specimen of confused thinking, proving that Ford is not really sure of what happened in 1844. For all know that he categorically denies that Christ entered the Most Holy Place in that year. Now we ask, If Christ did not enter the Most Holy Place in 1844, what actually took place in that year so as to "draw attention" to that place? His answer is that in 1844 nothing new happened in the heavenly sanctuary. But on earth the Great Disappointment happened. And the disappointed Adventists invented the doctrine of Christ entering the Most Holy Place to save face, Ford believes. But if this face-saving device was a hoax, how could it effectively draw attention to the Most Holy Place? Any attention it could draw would have been of a negative character--scorn and derision, not faith and godly fear. We see that Ford's explanation falls apart, unless he admits that something vital actually occurred in the sanctuary in 1844.

To clarify this point, we carry our logic one step further: since Ford says that the Adventists, a people raised up in 1844 by God, succeeded in drawing attention to the Most Holy Place by a "face-saving device," then in order to continue drawing attention to the Most Holy Place, Ford should do his best to uphold this "face-saving device" lest it be exploded by somebody and attention be no longer drawn to the Most Holy Place. But no, on the contrary, Ford himself is engaged in exploding what he agrees to be "the greatest face-saving device in history." Thus he is actually drawing attention away from the Most Holy Place. Using a term from Ford's vocabulary, his account of what happened in 1844 is "confusion confounded."

But he imagines that his "new theology" will eventually replace the concept of "heavenly geography, celestial furniture, ethereal architecture, and dates." He wants us to junk all these concrete items and accept his vague generalities. But in fact his statement is essentially an abstract of our traditional tenet and not an original theory. Since he does not believe that Christ entered the Most Holy Place in 1844, his account of what did happen should not have anything to do with the Most Holy Place, otherwise his is not a "new" theology in its own right. He has merely garbled the issue to avoid a showdown. For in other instances he dubs the doctrine of the investigative judgment a "doctrinal quirk" and an "oddity," and now to be consistent, he should come right out and say so. But no, this time he is considerate of his Adventist audience. He wouldn't be so rude as to say, "1844 is a big hoax; you all are a deluded bunch of simpletons." Instead he says something about God's calling attention to the Most Holy Place, but fails to explain how God could do so by staging the whole drama on a false premise. For he denies there are two apartments in heaven.

The fact remains that it is the geography, the furniture, the architecture, and the dates which set the stage for the mediatorial service of Christ, as taught in Hebrews 9. They may be likened to the skeleton which supports the body. You can't reject the skeleton and retain only the anatomy, which would then be only a shapeless pile of flesh.

What is our conclusion? Ford's account of what happened in 1844 is a clumsy attempt to invent a new theory which in fact still requires recognition of the basic facts of our traditional view. Otherwise it is not supportable.

Desmond Ford's sermon on Antichrist should be judged not by what he has said, but by what he has left unsaid. Never once in his long discourse does he even make passing mention of the Papacy being the Antichrist. He makes only one brief reference to the "medieval apostasy" without comment. From this we conclude that Ford denies the traditional Adventist teaching on this topic. But to veil his denial, he adopts the main strategy of "negation by omission," and resorts to four different tactics:

- Diversion. Ford diverts our attention to other religious systems and movements which he says are antichristian. Commenting on the beast of Revelation 13, he says, "Any religion that is creature-centered is antichrist." He cites the modern charismatic movement as an example. We expect him to say something about the counterfeit Sabbath as the mark of the beast, but no, not a word is mentioned in this connection.

- Diffusion. After diverting our attention from the true Antichrist, Ford proceeds to diffuse the target into something universally present. At first there were "many antichrists," now antichrist is everywhere. "Antichrist is in every one of us--in every church." "Not Pope Paul, but Pope Self." Here is another definition: "The main diabolical trick of antichrist is to take something very good and put it in the place of the very best." "It has many religious forms in every church."

- Inversion. The last remark implies that Ford assumes a neutral stance. But he is not really neutral. For he turns around to attack the very church which he professes to love, by trying to put the dunce cap on us. "Oh, no, that can't be true!" you say. Let us cite his own words. Hear how he aims his gun at the "legalists"--his favorite designation for traditional Seventh-day Adventists. He says, "The most subtle error of antichrist is not antinomianism, but . . ." Here he takes a round-about course and ends up denouncing "legalism." He equates it with antichrist thus: Antichrist takes the holy law and puts it to a wrong use--swings to the left--the pleasures of this world--antinomianism. Or he can swing it to the right--that's the religious one (legalism implied, in antithesis to antinomianism). They're both forms of the Antichrist.

So also with "perfectionism," which Ford says is a well-known manifestation of "legalism," and is identified with antichrist. He says,

This is antichrist--concentration on self, getting to heaven by one's own efforts. How are they going to do it? By mud. "Let us go to and bake clay and make us a tower to heaven." They take heaven as so low. That is what perfectionists do with the law. The only way a perfectionist could succeed is to reduce the law till it only covers conscious sins. The Babel builders thought heaven so low they thought they could reach it with their tower. The perfectionists make the law so small--God's commandments only have to do with the things we know about, only conscious known sins. That's bringing heaven down so low that with my mud I can easily get up there. That's Babylon.

Here the people who keep God's commandments are identified by Ford as antichrist and Babylon. This tactic is Ford's way of turning around and firing on his own people. Or are we his own people?

- Twisting. Ford accuses certain people (Adventists again, presumably) who engage in "twisting and turning." But he himself gives us the best example of twisting in this bit of logic: He first refers us to 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where Paul speaks of the "man of sin." Then he quotes Daniel 7:25, which speaks of the power which "thinks to change times and laws"--both familiar texts relating to antichrist. Then Ford speaks of the man of sin as the "lawless one." Here we expect him to elaborate on how the Papacy abolished the second commandment and changed the fourth. It is the straight Adventist interpretation. But no, he veers away from the straight path to twist and turn into the proposition that Antichrist is the "lawless one" because he parodies Christ in putting an end to the law. Ford quotes Romans 10:4, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Ford does not say which one of his many antichrists is guilty of parodying Christ, but simply uses this means to play up the words, "Christ is the end of the law."

Any one who has debated with Sunday advocates knows how they cite this text to oppose Sabbath-keeping. They try thereby to prove that the law of God is abolished. But what is the true meaning of this verse? The margin of the New American Bible gives "goal" as an alternate rendering for "end." Christ is the goal of the law; the law leads us to Christ.

Any attempt to use this verse to prove that the law is abolished is based on a misconception. Yet Ford uses this wrong interpretation to attack the "legalists." Then he quotes more texts, every one a favorite with anti-Sabbatarians, to charge the "legalists" with trying to gain acceptance with God by keeping the law. In the past this charge was levelled at us only by our opponents. Now this "Adventist" theologian uses it to harangue Adventists from the rostrums of Adventist churches.

Since Ford directs his talk on antichrist at the "legalists" and "perfectionists," and we know he is referring to the people who keep the commandments of God, we will accept his challenge and venture a reply.

We must begin with a canvass of the various definitions and connotations of "perfectionism." In the Scriptures the word "perfect" is used in its absolute sense as well as its relative sense. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect" is an example of the former (other examples in Luke 6:40, Colossians 1:28). "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect," is an example of the latter, where spiritual maturity is meant. (Other examples in Philippians 3:15, 1 Corinthians 13:20 margin, Hebrews 5:14-15 margin.) Ford is wrong in asserting that in the Bible "perfect" is always used with reference to spiritual maturity and never in the sense of sinlessness. Matthew 5:48 must be understood in the sense of sinlessness. Of course, it does not denote a spotless life record, but it points to the ultimate attainment before translation in the life of a true saint, as implied in Revelation 22:11.

Apart from these two distinct uses of "perfect" in the Bible, there have been two different definitions for "perfectionism" among Adventists. The earliest use of it by Ellen White is in Early Writings, 101, where she says, "God will not entrust the care of His precious flock to men whose mind and judgment have been weakened by former errors that they have cherished, such as so-called perfectionism and Spiritualism." Here "perfectionism" is called an error, but is not defined. We presume it refers to the teaching that the Christian is perfect at rebirth, and thereafter his every impulse is holy. This teaching is based on a misinterpretation of 1 John 3:9.

The present use of "perfectionism" among us, which has gained currency in the last 20 years, refers to the call to strive for holiness, particularly in this time of the investigative judgment. The Adventist who truly believes he is living in such a solemn time will live in daily watchfulness and self-denial, looking to Jesus to plead his case. His attention is drawn away from the world to the heavenly sanctuary where his destiny is being decided. But if he loses sight of his Lord, and the mediatorial work is to him no longer a vital reality, he dislikes hearing admonitions to strive for holiness. Ford puts it thus: "Many Adventists . . . have felt that their own destiny hung in the balance until they managed to squeeze through the intense scrutiny of the investigative judgment, where the use of every moment, cent, and opportunity, and time would be taken into account."

This concept is what many refer to by the term "perfectionism." They say that it has been a stumbling block to many, who after striving for a while, despair of ever reaching the perfect standard, and give up Christ altogether. Since Ford blames all this confusion on the teaching of the investigative judgment, he rejects this basic Adventist doctrine and attacks "perfectionism" at every opportunity. His argument is that the law requires perfection, which we cannot attain in this life. He says that since only Christ was perfect, His life as well as His death must count for ours.

Ford's error lies in denying the power of Christ working in us "both to will and to do of His good pleasure." The correct formula is here stated: Christ came because there was no possibility of man's keeping the law in his own strength. He came to bring him strength to obey the precepts of the law. Selected Messages, Book 3, 180

Note the words, "in his own strength," which are always missing in Ford's formula. He simply says that it is impossible for man to keep God's law, period. Here is a great difference. It casts aspersions on God the Lawgiver, virtually charging Him with despotism. For only despots make laws which are impossible to keep. This vital part of the gospel--the converting power of Christ--is not given its rightful place in Ford's "new theology." He says very little if anything about Christ living His life in us. His preaching is designed to relieve us of every "unpleasant" exercise of the soul, because he can't bear seeing us trying to "squeeze through" the investigative judgment. He tells us the good news that there is no investigative judgment and that we need not afflict our souls, but should rejoice in the salvation freely given. What's wrong with that? Isn't that good news?

Hear what God has to say: "Whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people." Leviticus 23:29. Is this bad news?

It is a matter of order. There can be no rejoicing for the sinner if there is no weeping. "Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning." Psalm 30:5. "Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice." Psalm 51:8. The Bible teaches us to find the joy of forgiveness through brokenhearted repentance. And repentance calls for a return to obedience to God's law. We can appreciate God's love and be motivated by gratitude only to the extent we are convicted by the vision of Christ crucified, abhor our own sinfulness, and determine to overcome in His strength. The doctrine of the investigative judgment is designed to point us to the cross of Christ and His mediatorial work for all who truly "afflict their souls." Any attempt to place the cross of Christ in opposition to the judgment is gross error.

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God . . and of eternal judgment.Hebrews6:1-2

This text tells us that repentance, faith toward God, and judgment are the basic principles of the gospel, from which we are to "go on unto perfection"--spiritual maturity. And Philippians 3:8-15 gives us a picture of a mature Christian: Yea, doubtless, and 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. . . . That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death . . . Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. . . . I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded."

Beginning from the first principles, a Christian goes through a transition from self to Christ. Repentance, justification, and judgment all concern the sinner--his attitude toward sin, his deliverance from guilt, and his standing before God. But perfection centers on Christ. Christ captures the entire being; He fills our horizon, and we say, "Christ shall be magnified in my body. . . . For to me to live is Christ." He is not in the remote past, but a present reality. We know where He is and what He is doing. And He keeps us informed. When He first left us He said, "I go to prepare a place for you." Later He told the church that He was ministering for them in the heavenly sanctuary. In 1844, "Jesus regarded with the deepest compassion the disappointed ones who had waited for His coming: and He sent His angels to direct their minds that they might follow Him where He was." Early Writings, 244. These people had their eyes on Christ. Since they had waited for His coming, Christ would not leave them in sorrow but gave them new light, and they kept their eyes on Him. This faith is true spiritual maturity. As it is written, "The just shall live by faith"--faith in the living Christ as revealed in God's written Word.

This is the righteousness that works by faith. Before we can see with our eyes Christ coming in glory, we must first learn by faith to see Him coming into the Most Holy Place. By faith we must see there the ark of the testament and the tables of the law. But the only tangible thing we can see on earth is the written Word of God, and if we really believe it, we will act on it. The world may scoff and say, "Yours is a blind faith." "No," we reply, "we have the Word of God." Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9:8-9 tell us that Christ entered the Most Holy Place in 1844; Isaiah 58:12-14 says that the breach made in the law of God must be repaired; Revelation 10:11 commands us to continue heralding the second advent of Christ. What is righteousness by faith? It is to act on God's every word because we believe it--this is the third angel's message in Truth and verity.

Now we come back to our theme. People complaining about too much "perfectionism" probably have been too long obsessed with the question, "What must I do to be saved?" which has been drummed into their ears too often. Christ our substitute is the only Christ preached to them; Christ our example and "Christ in you, the hope of glory" is practically banned from many pulpits. When people think that once they accept God's forgiveness they are saved, what need have they for perfection?

Seventh-day Adventists are uniquely qualified of God to preach perfection, for we are equipped to present to the world a perfect image of Christ. In this Laodicean age Christ introduces Himself as the "beginning of the creation of God." Revelation 3:14. He has always been the "Lord of the Sabbath." Among all the denominations in existence, only true Sabbathkeepers can wholeheartedly introduce Jesus as the "Lord of the Sabbath." Other churches shy away from these words, and some would fain expunge them from God's Book. The Christ we preach is the truly modern Jesus. We alone can present an undistorted image of our Redeemer.

Another facet of this perfect image is Christ our great High Priest. The remnant church alone is entrusted with the truths about His entry into the Holy of Holies in 1844, when the ark of the testament in heaven was seen, and the "perfect law of liberty" was revealed as the standard by which the world will be judged. But there is a breach in the law which must be repaired. Seventh-day Adventists have been given this assignment--to restore the sign of sanctification to God's people. For this reason we are best fitted to talk on perfection. Every true Seventh-day Adventist is unashamed and unafraid of that word, for it is God's upward calling. Impossible? "I can do all things through Him that strengtheneth me."

God's plan of redemption takes in more than the salvation of man. Its ultimate aim is the exaltation of Christ and the glory of God. Philippians 2:9-11 says, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . . and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Hence every perfect Christian always thinks first of God's honor. Joseph overcame with the words, "How can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" Daniel and the three worthies also stood for the right when God's honor was at stake, and considered not their own safety. Jesus taught us to turn from thoughts on self to think only of God's glory when He said, "Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour! But for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name!"

His prayer, "Father, glorify thy name!" brought immediate response. Peals of eloquent thunder announced God's great purpose.

Four brief but meaningful words comprise a perfect prayer, moving the arm of Omnipotence to wield His miraculous power. The glory of God is bound up with the happiness of all His creatures; for when man sinned and came short of the glory of God, the shadow of decay fell upon all creation, and only when God is fully glorified by the restoration of His perfect image in man through the merits of Jesus Christ will all creation be redeemed.

Some who see only the problem of how to be saved make it the sum total of God's plan of redemption. They are short-sighted, for much more is at stake. When the Israelites rebelled at Kadesh-barnea, the Lord said to Moses, "I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they." God was testing Moses. Would he think only of himself? No, his first thought was the honor of God's name and the welfare of God's people. He said to the Lord, "If thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which He sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness."

Today we are faced with the same issue. When God demands perfect obedience, what is involved? Our salvation? Yes, but much more--God's honor and the security of the universe. God has been dishonored by all who have trampled His Sabbath in defiance of His authority. Just so today, as the great controversy reaches its climax, God will magnify His law and make it honorable. The Son of God has saved us from the power of sin by paying the penalty for our transgression, and now He would enlist us to join Him in vindicating the authority of God's law. Satan has accused God of despotism, because, says he, it is impossible to keep God's law. Christ gives strength to every child of God to live in obedience to His commandments and thus prove Satan to be a liar, and that God's law can be kept. The last great test concerns the Sabbath commandment, and every true soldier of Christ must stand firm to the end, always praying that perfect prayer, "Father, glorify thy name!"

The Father was glorified by the obedience of His Son and all His saints in past ages. So will He glorify His name again through all who overcome in His strength today. For He has said, "Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified." Isaiah 49:3

Such is the true perfection God expects to see in every saint. They are not so concerned for their own salvation as they are for the glory of that name which is above every name. They are perfect, because they have the mind of Christ, and say with Him, "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." And it is the burning of this zeal which consumes our dross and strengthens us to overcome as He overcame.

David Lin March 12, 1982

RETURN TO INDEX