Desmond Ford needs to be reinstated into the church with a full apology!

[Telaquapacky]

This is really a great discussion. I wish I had time or knowledge to do justice to all the questions raised.

Icedragon, one source for the unpopularity of Miller’s views is Testimonies vol 1, pg. 43, describing how Ellen Harmon’s family was “discontinued” from membership in the Methodist Church for attending Millerite meetings and espousing belief in the imminent second coming of Christ. I think it’s safe to call a teaching “very unpopular” if it gets you kicked out of your church.

I think you make a very good point that none of the texts I quoted “are saying any thing about the righteous. they are only on the wicked. the investigative judgment is to determine who can get into heaven, not who deserves punishment.” Thank you, I had not thought of that. I’ll take a second look at them when I have time. But one example dealing with the righteous immediately comes to mind: I should have cited Ezekiel, not only chapter 8, but also chapter 9. Immediately after sending Ezekiel on an investigative reporting mission to the temple, God tells Ezekiel how he is going do deal with the situation:

Ezekiel 9:2-6
And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. With them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side
4 and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."
5 As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion.
6 Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.

In Ezekiel’s vision, the man clothed in linen with the writing kit marks the righteous with a mark on their foreheads. In Revelation, the righteous are marked with the Seal of God. In Ezekiel, whoever doesn’t have the mark is killed. Whoever doesn’t have the seal of God is harmed by plague of bizarre scorpion–like locusts in Revelation 9. Furthermore, a juxtaposition of the recipients of the mark of the beast and those who receive their Father’s name written on their foreheads is found in Revelation 13:16 to 14:1. The parallel is unmistakable. While I agree that it would be more forensically clear-cut to have a separate judgment of the wicked and the righteous in every case of investigation, firstly, Bible prophecy is anything but clear cut, and secondly, I don’t think that is really necessary, because in both the cases I mention here, the definition of the lost group automatically defines the saved group and vice versa because it’s a zero sum situation. If one is not in one group they are automatically by default in the other.

Rev 7:2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea:
Rev 7:3 "Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God."
Rev 7:4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

Rev 7:3 "Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God."

Rev 9:4 They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads.

Rev 13:16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead,
Rev 13:17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
Rev 13:18 This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.
Rev 14:1 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.

One notable example of an investigation of the righteous is the story of Job. Satan accuses Job of having impure motives for serving God. Then God allows Satan to experiment on Job to prove Job’s motives. What comes out of it is that though Job doesn’t understand why God has allowed him to be hurt, Job never relinquishes his trust in God that God will deal fairly with him in the end.

There are a few texts I can think of that talk about God judging the righteous. Whether they apply specifically to the IJ I cannot say. One is the one above in Ezekiel 9:6, “Begin at my sanctuary.” Another is 1 Peter 4:17 “For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” You might say to me (forgive me, I don’t want to put words in your mouth- bur for the sake of illustration) aha! Peter said the judgment of the church started in his day, not at the end of time. But remember that Peter thought his day was the end of time. Another is Revelation 2:17 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.” The point of a judgment for the righteous is that the white rock is something the judge gives you to symbolize that you have been tried and acquitted. You don’t get that rock unless you stand trial. Every innocent person who has been wrongly accused of a crime eagerly desires their day in court to clear their name and to get that acquittal. Why would a righteous person not want an investigative judgment to clear them? It’s not a threat. It’s a promise.

Psalm 11:4,5
The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD is on his heavenly throne. He observes the sons of men; his eyes examine them.
5 The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates.
(don’t ask me why David says God hates the wicked- your guess is as good as mine)

Psalm 26:2,3
Test me, O LORD, and try me, examine my heart and my mind;
3 for your love is ever before me, and I walk continually in your truth.

RC_New Protestants raised the question whether I thought God was investigating before judging. It seemed absurd to him for God to investigate anything since God knows everything. There is a nuance to Seventh-day Adventist theology that is not found in some others. We recognize that God knows everything and does not need to make any investigation. He would be perfectly able and entitled to judge the whole world, and instantaneously execute the sentence of each, and frankly, owes no one any explanation. But that would not be open and accountable. God wants us to “Taste and see that He is good.” In the consummation of all things, we believe that God’s reputation is at stake, not merely because God wants a good public image. God does not need a good public image to feel good about Himself. But God knows that our ultimate eternal happiness- whether we feel good with Him- depends upon our loving obedience to Him by choice. This is why before any major intervention in human affairs, God wants all parties to see how and why He intervenes. All the Old Testament stories of God’s judgment and destruction, all the events where God sent His people to kill and destroy- they all had a perfectly good reason that is evident to anyone who cares to study it out, and will be very clear to all living, saved or lost, in the way God handles the consummation of all things.

By the way, this is where people misinterpret Graham Maxwell. Maxwell does not say God does not destroy or kill. He says God does not destroy or kill without a perfectly good reason, which is revealed in Scripture to anyone who cares to study it out. I have met people who considered themselves experts on Graham Maxwell, and quoted him extensively, and who insisted that God never kills or destroys. They misunderstood and misrepresented Graham Maxwell.

Icedragon wrote: We are not the only ones who teach Sabbath, or the state of the dead. We are not the only ones to ever teach the visible second coming, or that there is a heavenly sanctuary, but we are the the only ones the investigative judgment. why does no one else teach it.?

If we did not teach something that no one else taught, what point would there be in having another church? But there is more to it than the investigative judgment. We have an entirely different understanding about how God runs His government.

Icedragon, you tell me, “I know your mind set.” No you don’t.

If you knew my mind set, why would you stretch my statement that merely because the majority believes something in the spiritual realm doesn’t make it true- into the preposterous notion that merely because the majority disbelieves something that automatically makes it true? Was I saying that? I was not saying that. You know, there are a lot of minorities. Branch Dividians are a minority. Mormons are a minority. Just because a minority holds certain beliefs doesn’t automatically make them true either, and what I said did not imply that.

Have I used any rhetorical tactics in my discussion with you? Have I judged you, saying I know your mind set, and made an absurd, belittling characterization of you? No. My motive in discussing this with you is- even though you are convinced of the wrongness of certain SDA doctrines, and I see that you have perfectly good reasons for what you’re saying, and you may believe whatever you want- my point is some of us believe differently; we feel we have perfectly good reasons to believe what we do, and we have a right to believe what we do and maintain and defend an organized church that teaches and espouses what we believe.

And I am not saying you should leave the church- please don’t. I think any genuine believer would accept you fully as a brother in Christ and welcome any discussion with you in a spirit of brotherhood. There’s a balance I would like to strike in my church discussion, something I am still working on and trying to learn. I will not understand what I believe if I spend all my time speaking only to those who agree with me. On the other hand, I’m not going to chase jackrabbits around by entering into every dispute and think I have to change everyone’s mind who disagrees with me, nor do I want the depressing effects of dealing with constant debating.

I see that there are a lot of thin-skinned people here who take offense too easily, and demonize and overreact to anyone who presents a view that differs from them. Then there’s the chess players. They twist your words- they don’t really care about the truth- and they certainly don’t care about you, they just want to win a debate. Then there’s the venters. They hurl invectives, pejoratives and accusations. The fact is that no one ever will change anyone else’s mind about what they believe by discussing it on the internet with people they will probably never see in this life. You won’t. I won’t. Perhaps to you, I am stubborn and brainwashed and a mindless victim of propaganda. You don’t know me well enough to say that. How can you judge my spiritual life? I don’t judge yours.

Keep up your faith in Jesus, and if I said anything in my posts that judged you or characterized you unfairly, forgive me, I am still learning.

By the way, if I am incorrect about Graham Maxwell, I would be glad to read any reference written by Graham Maxwell himself that God never kills or destroys. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

But that would not be open and accountable.

Whereas the IJ beginning in 1844 is open and accountable? Just not to anyone involved it appears (e.g no humans allowed). The only beings who really need to learn to trust God, they are not present for this open and accountable investigation. Ummm seems a little contrived doesn't it?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

icedragon, one source for the unpopularity of Miller’s views is Testimonies vol 1, pg. 43, describing how Ellen Harmon’s family was “discontinued” from membership in the Methodist Church for attending Millerite meetings and espousing belief in the imminent second coming of Christ. I think it’s safe to call a teaching “very unpopular” if it gets you kicked out of your church.

I must stop and correct you here. I was reading a dissertation by First day Adventist chuch minister. His chuch came out of the same event. He was describing the same event you are talking about, The millerites being kicked out of the main line chruch was largely there own fault. the pastors of the baptist and methodist chruch's did not mind the millerites coming to there chruchs., what they objected to was the setting of the DATE for christ's return.

because the millerites thought jesus was coming so soon they were understandably concerned about their friends salvation. they began to inturrept the chruch services and just make a general necusance. When they finally set a date it just became unbareable. It was at that point the millerites were asked to leave.

Think about it like this today is someone came to the chruch and said Jesus is coming soon you would say great that is goodnews. But what would happen if the person said Jesus is coming soon and the date is may 19 2010, What do you think the chruch would do? Kick them out. Why becuse Jesus tells us "No man knows the day or the Hour of the coming of the Son of Man". But that is exactly what the Millerites did the calimed to know the Day of christ return. The Baptist and Methodist ministers responded to the Millerite problem properly. then when jesus did not come what did Miller and his band of followers look like? They looked like a bunch of nut cases.

The SDA's then came along and said hey we were wrong about Jesus coming, but here is why we "misinterpeted" a few passages, Jesus went to the Most holy place not coming to earth, we got it right this time. Hey come join us now. a normal person would say get lost.

That is what you are up against and why the investigative judgement is so problematic. it was made up to explain the failure of Christ return.

I think you make a very good point that none of the texts I quoted “are saying any thing about the righteous. they are only on the wicked. the investigative judgment is to determine who can get into heaven, not who deserves punishment.” Thank you, I had not thought of that. I’ll take a second look at them when I have time.

wow you didn't fight me or call me names. i am really impressed. you took my concerns seriously. you should be commended as a very class act. thank-you for that exchange. you are gaining my respect.

But one example dealing with the righteous immediately comes to mind: I should have cited Ezekiel, not only chapter 8, but also chapter 9. Immediately after sending Ezekiel on an investigative reporting mission to the temple, God tells Ezekiel how he is going do deal with the situation:

Ezekiel 9:2-6
And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. With them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side
4 and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."
5 As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion.
6 Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.

ezekiel is one the the better defences for the Ij but there are still a few problem, there is no review of any records. i agree that there is a separation here, but I believe it is talking about excuative judgemet.

In Ezekiel’s vision, the man clothed in linen with the writing kit marks the righteous with a mark on their foreheads. In Revelation, the righteous are marked with the Seal of God. In Ezekiel, whoever doesn’t have the mark is killed. Whoever doesn’t have the seal of God is harmed by plague of bizarre scorpion–like locusts in Revelation 9. Furthermore, a juxtaposition of the recipients of the mark of the beast and those who receive their Father’s name written on their foreheads is found in Revelation 13:16 to 14:1. The parallel is unmistakable. While I agree that it would be more forensically clear-cut to have a separate judgment of the wicked and the righteous in every case of investigation, firstly, Bible prophecy is anything but clear cut, and secondly, I don’t think that is really necessary, because in both the cases I mention here, the definition of the lost group automatically defines the saved group and vice versa because it’s a zero sum situation. If one is not in one group they are automatically by default in the other.

the only problem I have here is that SDA interpet the mark in revelation as the Sabbath. I think it is just a symbolic way of God seprating the righteous from the wicked. but it seem to be in the context of the executive judgement.


Icedragon wrote: We are not the only ones who teach Sabbath, or the state of the dead. We are not the only ones to ever teach the visible second coming, or that there is a heavenly sanctuary, but we are the the only ones the investigative judgment. why does no one else teach it.?

If we did not teach something that no one else taught, what point would there be in having another church?

Even with the flaws, like the IJ NO ONE ELSE HAS THE A SYSTEM OF DOCTRINCAL TEACHING WE HAVE. no one displays it quite like we do. the only signifcan of the IJ is that it explaind the 1844 disappointment. that is the only purpose and reason for it.

Icedragon, you tell me, “I know your mind set.” No you don’t.

waht I ment was that I had encounterd that thinking before. i was making a general statment. I sorry if i misrepresented you.

if you knew my mind set, why would you stretch my statement that merely because the majority believes something in the spiritual realm doesn’t make it true- into the preposterous notion that merely because the majority disbelieves something that automatically makes it true? Was I saying that? I was not saying that. You know, there are a lot of minorities. Branch Dividians are a minority. Mormons are a minority. Just because a minority holds certain beliefs doesn’t automatically make them true either, and what I said did not imply that.

no you did not say that, but the conclusion is there. my point was the majorty or minorty does not make truth., but truth sould not be uinque to us. We may have collected the truth and display it in a unique way, but things should not me unique in and of themselves.

Have I used any rhetorical tactics in my discussion with you? Have I judged you, saying I know your mind set, and made an absurd, belittling characterization of you? No. My motive in discussing this with you is- even though you are convinced of the wrongness of certain SDA doctrines, and I see that you have perfectly good reasons for what you’re saying, and you may believe whatever you want- my point is some of us believe differently; we feel we have perfectly good reasons to believe what we do, and we have a right to believe what we do and maintain and defend an organized church that teaches and espouses what we believe.

if judged you i am sorry did not mean to do that

 

[Your Neighbor]

Iowa Conference's B. F. Snook, president, and W. H. Brinkerhoff, secretary in the 1860's rejected the investigative judgment and the ministry of EGW and started what became the Church of God (Seventh Day). (Go to the White Estate and do a search for those last names in EGW's writings.)

Desmond Ford and any other pastor/theologian/conference worker who rejects the investigative judgment and EGW should join the Church of God (Seventh Day) instead of staying in the SDA Church. I taught in an academy for several years and know whereof I speak. Most of these have sin-and-live theology. They ought to do the noble thing and leave voluntary. If not, the churches should disfellowship all of them.

"We have far more to fear from within than from without." Selected Messages Book 1 (1958), page 122, paragraph 3

 

[Your Neighbor]

A Biblical Basis for The Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/investigative-judgment.htm

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Iowa Conference's B. F. Snook, president, and W. H. Brinkerhoff, secretary in the 1860's rejected the investigative judgment and the ministry of EGW and started what became the Church of God (Seventh Day). (Go to the White Estate and do a search for those last names in EGW's writings.)

Desmond Ford and any other pastor/theologian/conference worker who rejects the investigative judgment and EGW should join the Church of God (Seventh Day) instead of staying in the SDA Church. I taught in an academy for several years and know whereof I speak. Most of these have sin-and-live theology. They ought to do the noble thing and leave voluntary. If not, the churches should disfellowship all of them.

"We have far more to fear from within than from without." Selected Messages Book 1 (1958), page 122, paragraph 3

if there is one thing I hate it is the misuse of EGW. could you first look at the context and tell us how or what she was speciffically refereing to. it may not apply here. any time SDA have a disagreement these type of quotes are pulled out. Here is another one of the top of my head. " the chruch will look like it is going to fall......" The passage is oftern applied to the end times. But she is not sepcifically referenceing the end of time, but it is quoted often for that purpose.

Snook and Brinkhoff are very intresting characters. Most SDA's are not familure with them. Hum makes me wonder why? another Sabbatarian Chruch that does not Accept Ellen white. Oh don't say that.
7thday-chruch of God has some doctrianl issues that conservative SDA and Evaglical SDA cannot accetp. mainly the nature of Christ.

As far the Sin- and live theology that charge comes up over again against the those who disagree with some SDA theology. Now there are certianly those who want to sin and live, but I have never heard that said by Des Ford . the reason that comes up is the historics and conservatives think that to reject the IJ and Last generation theology is to reject the only way to get people to obey God. There is another way it is called "discipleship" don't teach obediance teach discipleship, it get't the same result but in differnt ways.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

They ought to do the noble thing and leave voluntary. If not, the churches should disfellowship all of them.

I don't believe in sin and live theology and i don't believe the investigative judgement and I dont believe in last generation theology. discipleship is the way to go. "you are my disciples if you do what I command" (what I tell you) solves the sin and live theology.

 

[Your Neighbor]

if there is one thing I hate it is the misuse of EGW. could you first look at the context and tell us how or what she was speciffically refereing to.

I read the context before posting it. I know I posted it out of context. But the principle still remains.

 

[Your Neighbor]

...Snook and Brinkhoff are very intresting characters. Most SDA's are not familure with them.

They start a list of other apostates to come later -
D.M. Canright
A.F. Ballenger
L. Conradi
R. Brinsmead
D. Ford
etc...

 

[Adventist Heretic]

They start a list of other apostates to come later -
D.M. Canright
A.F. Ballenger
L. Conradi
R. Brinsmead
D. Ford
etc...

to call snook & brinkhoff apostates is ignorant. the same with the ford, a f bllanger was kicked out . canwright was reactionaryand left over egw and the law in galatians, but did not give up christ. conradi left over the sanctuary issue. the only one I am willing to give you is Brinsmead because he totally rejected chrsit.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Nighteternal wrote:

The penal, forensic atonement is not under question for me and many other devoted Christians. It is foundational and Maxwell has tampered in this area at his own peril. Peter Abelard endorsed the same heresy (yes, it is heresy) and Maxwell merely took it, modernized it and pre-packaged it in a different way.

Well the same could be said by the traditional Christian about eternal torment in Hell, immortal souls, and gathering to worship on Sunday. Those could be said to be foundational but we as SDA's have asked Christians to reconsider why they believe what they believe. I think we need to do that on a regular basis. It is the people who won't consider what they believe that are the biggest obstacles, it is the type of mindset that was evidenced in many of the Pharisee's and it is not all that consistent with real seeker's of truth.

I do agree that Maxwell is very inconsistent when it comes to Ellen White. But then if you are going to be consistent with EGW then you have to believe the IJ, you have to believe in amalgamation between man and beast which is still visible in some races today, and you have to believe that God will torture the wicked for hours to days or weeks before he destroys them. So it is really hard to be consistent with those kinds of teachings. So Maxwell it appears has to decide which of those teachings are really of God and which are just her views based upon her culture and understanding. or the views of those she borrowed from. Frankly most SDA's end up doing that which tends to make our views of EGW as equally confused as Maxwell's. That is those who hold to her as a prophet, those like me who don't hold her as a prophet don't really have a problem.

If you had read my article on the history of the atonement you would see that your statement is also incorrect. In fact the Moral influence theory concept is held in conjunction with every other theory of the atonement because it is the one concept that is most clearly revealed in the Bible so when someone calls it heresy you really have to wonder about them.

 

[NightEternal]

Nobody in the church has to end up frustrated with EGW. It's just a matter of knowing how inspiration works and understanding how the ultra-conservatives have grossly distorted, misused and abused her prophetic authourity. Neither does anyone have to abandon thier belief in her inspiration. George Knight and Graeme Bradford have superbly outlined the issues and presented a balanced, common sense approach to her and the use of her materials. Any Adventist who has not read More Than A Prophet needs to do themselves a favor. But of course, Bradford's groundbreaking research will fall on deaf ears and he will be maligned by the deifiers and the rejectors both.

How sad it is that so many have had thier faith in her inspiration shattered by the actions of idiotic, cultic conservatives who, by thier primitive, hammerheaded misunderstanding of inspiration, have disgusted and driven away many Adventists who otherwise would proudly profess she had a supernatural gift.

Yes, I condemned Maxwell for the pick and choose method, but only because he and his followers profess to uphold her just as much as the TSDA's. I make no such claim for myself, and I proudly use the pick and choose method freely without guilt. If the fundamentalists choose to hang up thier brains and discernment at the door in regards to her and be a slave to thier 'all or nothing, black or white' mentality, they are welcome. I will continue to use my God-given common sense and judgment and treat her just like any other messenger of God: Test all things, hold fast to that which is good.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

They ought to do the noble thing and leave voluntary.

the noble thing. The SDA chruch tells these people that they are the remnant chruch. the pey on the unknowing person. the person builds there life around the SDA chruch and is isolated from all social contacts they usually only have friends in the SDA chruch. Then if they have some doctrinal disagreements with the church you want to in effect rip every facet of there life out from underneith them. yah that is christ like?

YOu want people to leave, where are they going to go? we are not talking about people who want to sinned and live we are talking about minor theological differences. weather you believe in the investigative judgement is not imparitve to you salvation. you can go you entire life and not understand the teaching and be a wonderful christian and have a wonderful christian experiance. You can go your whole life and not believe in EGW as a prophet and still be a good christian. The christian experiance is not depenent on knowing these things. Jesus is not dependant on Ellen. Ellen is dependant on Jesus.

when you want to make a place for people who believe the sabbath, the state of the dead, the literal visible second coming, spiritual gifts, and the pre fall human nature of christ, they they will leave. you show know concern for their spirtual life or eternal salvation. As long as you get what you want and people agree with you.

 

[tall73]

Here is a good document that I found that gives the more or less official church viewpoint of the incident with Ford. It is the October 1980 special edition of Ministry Magazine. For those who are not familiar with Ministry it is an international journal for pastors put out by the Adventist church. Every other month it goes to ministers of varying denominations, and to Adventist pastors. The other months it goes just to Adventist pastors and tends to foucs on distictive Adventist issues and practical aspects of ministry. It is really a well done magazine in general.

This special issue is 64 pages and includes a re-cap from Spangler, a letter from then president Neal Wilson, the actual consensus document from Glacier view, the doucment of a sub-committee dealing with EGW, a list of the delegates, correspondence between Ford and his divison president, an extensive question and answer section etc.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1980-10/index.djvu

The denomination puts the archives of a number of its documents in Dejavu format, rather than PDF (which they used to use). . So you may have to download the Lizardtech dejavu browser plug-in.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/GetDjVuControl.asp

For information on the dejavu format, which apparently works better with scanned documents, check here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djvu

 

[djconklin]

Des Ford was over at a Seminary professor's house one time for lunch and the professor's wife asked him if he was ever wrong on anything. He replied, "Yes, but never on a point of theology." Given the history of mankind that would be the first place I'd look.

Thanks for the links Tall--I printed off the magazine.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Des Ford was over at a Seminary professor's house one time for lunch and the professor's wife asked him if he was ever wrong on anything. He replied, "Yes, but never on a point of theology." Given the history of mankind that would be the first place I'd look.

Before I leave, just how is the above not gossip? All the comments against gossip you would think the above would get some reference.

 

[djconklin]

Before I leave, just how is the above not gossip? All the comments against gossip you would think the above would get some reference.

On the one hand, since you have no names, dates or places it is gossip. But, since I didn't communicate with my source to get permission to use his name I'm not going to give it.

On the other hand, giving you a name still wouldn't help. For instance, see the Lucinda Burdick "gossip." Or, the Fannie Bolton "gossip." But, both of those are gobbled up and repeated ad infinitum without question of it being gossip by the critics.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

On the one hand, since you have no names, dates or places it is gossip. But, since I didn't communicate with my source to get permission to use his name I'm not going to give it.

But you felt quite free to use Ford's name. I suppose if someone thinks their use of gossip is not gossip that somehow makes their gossip acceptable.

 

[djconklin]

But you felt quite free to use Ford's name. I suppose if someone thinks their use of gossip is not gossip that somehow makes their gossip acceptable.

His name is the subject of this thread.

It would be irrational to talk about someone else on the same thread.

Secondly, gossip is without support--I have it, I just didn't supply it.

I have been reading the Ministry magazine that Tall pointed us to. Does anyone know if Ford has apologized for his misuse of Ellen White?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Hey instead of Desmod Ford getting an apology, how about he start his own denomination. Here is the Name "Evanglical Adventist Chruch" sounds pretty good. If any one can pull it off he can.