How Firm Our Foundation 2

"Well, what shall we say about the solution of the problem? The coming of Christ was the end of the world, and the judgment of the world. ‘Now is the judgment of this world.’ ‘Once at the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.’ The coming of Christ was the end of the world, legally, forensically, and all the things that happened in principle with the death of Christ are repeated again at the end of the age, when that which is forensically [legally] true already, becomes in a sensory fashion, manifest. Theologians talk about ‘Inaugurated Eschatology’ . . theologians say that somehow the end of the world came with the first advent. And then they talk about ‘Consummated Eschatology’ by which they mean the real, obvious end of the world . . ‘Consummated Eschatology,’ as well as ‘Inaugurated Eschatology’. . There was a judgment at the end of the first advent, and a judgment at the end of the world, and it’s not a strange thing that it should do the same thing with the Day of Atonement [place it at the first advent also]. Does anyone here think the goat was slain in 1844? The Day of Atonement is the same as the Atonement. It was the day the Atonement was made, and of course that points to Calvary. The Book of Hebrews applies the Day of Atonement to the cross of Christ and His ascension into the presence of God. The book of Revelation applies the imagery of the Day of Atonement—and this I have expanded in a recent commentary on Revelation, not yet in print,—but the book of Revelation applies the Day of Atonement to the seventh seal, the seventh trumpet, the seven last plagues and the beginning of the Millenium. Many non-Adventist scholars have seen it, but no church as a whole."

The above statements apply the antitypical Day of Atonement to Calvary, the last days, and to the events after probation closes and Christ has left the Sanctuary (the seven last plagues, the beginning of the Millennium, etc.).

And so we are given more new light from the theologians whose writings Ford carefully studies, in preparation for his class lectures and campmeeting sermons. Contemporary theologians are Ford’s weakness. Whatever new thing they think up, he must champion among Seventh-day Adventists. He studies the imaginings of the current Protestant theologians in order to find something new, and then he goes to the Spirit of Prophecy in order to squeeze its concepts into the mold of what he has been reading in the books and journals of modern Protestantism. Then he fills the minds of our young people with this theological nonsense, as he did in this lecture presented to the Associated Students Forum at Pacific Union College.

Yes, there may be truth scattered among all that he brings out from their works, but is this what we are paying him to do—lead our young people over to the writings of the daughters of Babylon? I believe I am safe in saying that we have a more complete collection of inspirational and doctrinal truth in the Prophetic Writings given us, than does any other church in our world today. Why can we not study the rich mines of pure ore in the Gift of Prophecy, rather than cast our eyes upon the desert wastes of modern speculation.

"Inaugurated Eschatology" and "Consummated Eschatology,"—two big words that really don’t mean anything. And the reasoning underlying Ford’s thinking here is based on but two points: First, what if I could show you from Scripture that Christ could have returned the second time when the Flood occurred —what would that prove? Nothing. It surely would not prove that Bible prophecy could only be fulfilled at the time of the Flood and at the Second Coming of Christ. Second, what if I told you, for example, that there are remarkable parallels between the time of Elijah and the End of the World—the fleeing to the country, the royal death decree, the miraculous feeding, the call to obey the law of God, fire from heaven, the little cloud the size of a man’s hand, and on and on (1 Kings 16-17). Would that prove that all of last day events were begun ("inaugurated") at the time of Elijah? As we thus view the two-fold argument that Dr. Ford here advances, but using other Biblical examples in its place, we can see that the issue that he raises is ridiculous. There are many parallels in the Bible to last day events. The book of Esther is full of them. A remarkable series is to be found within the historical section of Daniel. And so it goes. Men when they turn from the work God gave them to do—working for the lost,— to a strange work—that of magnifying their intelligence before others, seem to lose depth in their thinking.

But it should be understood that at the heart of these cherished speculations fostered by Dr. Ford is a special teaching very dear to Dr. Ford’s heart—that of Futurism. The theory that all Bible Prophecy—in Daniel, Revelation, the Sanctuary Service in Antitype, the prophecies of Christ and of Paul—all are fulfilled ONLY at Calvary, and again at the Second Advent or immediately prior to it. We are told, "By their fruits ye shall know them." And we might add, "By their origins ye shall know them." This teaching—Prophetic Futurism—was invented by the Spanish Jesuit Ribera in 1590, only 73 years after Luther’s theses were posted at Wittenburg and provided a very welcome method of counterattack against Protestantism. For by use of the teaching of Futurism, Rome could destroy every Bible prophecy that pointed to the Papacy as the Little Horn of Daniel, the Man of Sin of Paul, the Antichrist of John, and the Great Babylon of Revelation. Futurism as a means of interpreting Biblical prophecies is violently opposed to the Historic approach used by our church since the time of our pioneers. With the passing of time Rome carefully trained these offspring of Loyola, and disguised as Protestants who had been educated in the great universities of the land, Jesuit agents worked their way into Protestant churches, their seminaries, and educational centers. And there they introduced their Roman Catholic errors gradually into the teachings of these organizations, until in this our day the beliefs of Catholicism and Protestantism are markedly similar. A hallmark of Jesuit practice is the removing of the Biblical basis of the churches, their distinctive Protestant belief in salvation through a personal relationship to Christ and obedience to Him, and the muffling of anti-Catholic thinking among them. And now through men like Dr. Ford such deceptive teachings are coming into our own ranks. It all may appear very clever and even attractive—but at its heart are errors that will, if accepted, destroy us as a people.

"The only thing that holds up the Second Advent is a people who understand the gospel. Once they understand it, they cannot help but spread it. The trouble is we’ve never understood it. That’s why we’re so Laodicean. That’s why we’re marching, marching,—ever marching—backwards. (laughter) Do you know it took us to 1911 before we had as many people as William Miller had in 1844? It took us to 1911. Now the statistics are exploding so, that unless some new thing happened within Adventism, we’ll be a forgotten sect—by the turn of the century —or not not long afterward."

We are here told that the entire Advent Movement is on the wrong track. Thousands are being brought to a knowledge of the Third Angel’s Message all over the world—but it is all worthless. All of it—a steady march backward to oblivion . . all because we do not, will not understand the "gospel" being presented to us in this and similar lectures by Desmond Ford. Our entire denomination—destined to destruction within a generation—because we stick with Great Controversy rather than the new light of Dr. Ford, that alone can save us from Inspired Guidance. Resolutely, he points out error in everything that we have and are as a people, that we may arise as one man, abandon the Spirit of Prophecy that has gotten us in this jam, and cast ourselves on the wise counsels of Dr. Ford.

We can learn two things from Dr. Ford’s comments here: (1) Dr. Ford’s teachings are totally different than our own, so much so that unless we accept them we are hopelessly on the wrong track and will be a forgotten movement by the end of the century—twenty years away. So Dr. Ford must therefore have something totally new for us. The complete changeover in thinking that he offers us will be necessary before we are satisfactorily remade into his pattern of thinking. (2) We are all marching unitedly in the wrong direction. No one among us clearly shares Dr. Ford’s purity of distilled truth. We are all in error, an entire church of some three million people.

"Christ was on the cross, darkness, signs in the heavens,—the next thing that happened—was that tension was drawn to the Most Holy Place,—because that veil represented His flesh, and when the flesh of Christ was torn, there was no barrier to entering boldly into the presence of God, accepted because of the merits of the crucified Christ. That’s the gospel, that’s the gospel—so there in the last days of Jesus Christ, the 1260 days of preaching, the polarizing of the people, the annointing of the Spirit, the Latter Rain, the Loud Cry, . the Cleansing of the Sanctuary—He did that in His last days—the attention to the Most Holy Place. They have prefigured the work of His body—it’s all taught in Revelation 11, my friends."

This is the gospel without which we will soon be a forgotten sect—the Most Holy Place entered by Christ 2000 years ago.

"What happened in 1844? God brought this church back to apostolic priviledge, brought it back to the place where it could see the significance of the cross, brought it to that place where it would lay hold of the gospel symbolized by the sanctuary, . . the message would spread to the world, and Jesus would come and every man’s destiny would be decided in the Judgment, "and he that is holy, let him be holy still, and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still."

You will note in the above passage that the order of events is 1. 1844, 2. Second Coming, 3. Investigative Judgment, 4. Close of Probation. Futurism places the "actual"judgment at the Second Advent, not before it (in the Investigative Judgment), nor after it (in the Executive Judgment). Futurism teaches that probation closes with the Return of Christ and not earlier.

1844 is of significance to Ford only as a pointing back to Calvary and the "Finished Atonenient" there. That is "what happened in 1844." Underlying all of Ford’s teachings regarding the Sanctuary Service in this lecture, and in his Righteousness by Faith studies elsewhere, is the error of a "Finished Atonement" at the Cross. This concept of modern Protestantism is that Christ overcame on our behalf at Calvary so that we need not overcome today. He obeyed so that we needn’t. Obedience on our part is not in any way related to our salvation. In contrast, our historic view is that Christ overcame at Calvary in order to provide us with enabling strength, which He dispenses from the Sanctuary in Heaven, that we may overcome as He overcame, and obey the Law of God. Ford would have us go out to the churches of the land, and unite with them in their message of non-obedience by faith, that having received the gospel of Ford, we may be prepared for the Coming of Christ.

"What happened in 1844?" Dr. Ford does not believe that Christ entered the Most Holy Place in 1844. He has already told us repeatedly in this lecture that this happened immediately after the Crucifixion. Dr. Ford does not believe that the Investigative Judgment began in 1844. He denied the truth of an Investigative Judgment at the beginning of this lecture. He does not believe that the Cleansing of the Sanctuary began in 1844. For part-way through this lecture, he repudiated any connection between the 2300 Year Prophecy of Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement Cleansing in Leviticus 16. What is left? NOTHING. He is correct in considering it an "historical non-occurrence —because for him nothing occurred in 1844. This, the longest time prophecy in Scripture, Desmond Ford has turned into a dead letter. And this too, is understandable, for he has told us that all Biblical prophecies are meaningless mirages designed only to teach the prophet himself a personal something that the rest of us can know nothing about. Fordian Theology, based on its speculative comments, turns the Advent Message into a shambles. And the Advent Message, based on Scripture, turns Fordian Theology into a shambles. They are mutually exclusive. They cannot exist together in the same church. One must go. And who will decide? The people of God will decide, if they will stand up for what they believe and protest the teaching of these errors to our young people and members. "Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" Esther 4:14.

Careful thought will reveal that the strongest opposition to Dr. Ford in our church—is found in the book, Great Controversy. Ford has already written elsewhere that the Man of Sin of 2 Thessalonians 2 does not apply to the Papacy. In common with Modern Protestantism, he would wish that the insights into the inner workings of Rome given in Great Controversy might not be given to the people. And in this lecture he is telling us that Ellen White’s thorough study of the Sanctuary Service in Great Controversy, chapters 23, 24, and 28 is incorrect. His only reference to this extensive material is that, it is the "some things—apparently—she’d written herself." And now, he is rapidly coming to the point in this lecture where he will directly attack this book that blocks his way, by declaring that the statements about Bible prophecy given in it, are not reliable. The positions of our pioneers, the teachings of Inspiration—nothing matters. All must be swept aside that Dr. Ford’s theories may become the acknowledged standard of the church. I predict that the show down between Ford and the church will occur over our acceptance or rejection of Great Controversy and its inspired messages.

"I treasure the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. I have tried, tried and tried again, to apply its principles—and failed—a million times—and but for the gospel she reveals—would be most discouraged."

It is difficult for many to realize the actual objectives of Desmond Ford. and the effects his teachings are having in the lives of man—for interspersed throughout his lectures are comments regarding the Spirit of Prophecy and our doctines which all can agree with. His clear mixing of truth with error, by alternately switching back and forth between them, leaves people uncertain as to what he is teaching, and open to the error which he has to present. That Dr. Ford has error to present and that he is actively presenting it—there is no doubt. This present lecture fully establishes that fact. He is teaching the errors of Ballenger, plus more beside. And now, consider the above: We are told that the reading and practicing of the Spirit of Prophecy will cause failure and discouragement. This is not a correct picture of the result of Spirit of Prophecy study. The True Gospel revealed in it leads to victory and overcoming through the power of Christ. Ford and Brinsmead teach that trying to obey the Word of God will always lead to failure, but that we are instead to rely upon the "gospel" of a Christ "outside of us" who overcame in our place, in a humanity not attainable by us, so that we need not try to do what we cannot do, and what God does not intend in this life to help us do.

"[In vision] I took the precious Bible and surrounded it with the Testimonies for the Church, given for the people of God. Here, said I, the cases of nearly all are met. . . One stood by my side and said, ‘God has raised you up and has given you words to speak to the people and to reach hearts as He has given to no other one. He has shaped your testimonies to meet cases that are in need of help . . . He will make you a means through which to communicate His light to the people."—5 Testimonies, 664:3, 66 7:2.

"And having said that, I believe we misuse her writings in an abominable fashion. I believe we do things that would have made her hair stand on end, and made her very angry. Listen to what she wrote, that we have forgotten [and then Evangelism 255:2 is quoted]. . How come we bring the Testimonies ahead of the Bible?"

The thought here is that she would very nearly go into a rage if she knew that we were paying much more than lip-service to the Spirit of Prophecy writings. The middle section of the quotation is omitted by Dr. Ford (the fourth sentence), which reveals that she is here speaking about giving our beliefs to new interests to our faith. We are to use the Bible, not the Spirit of Prophecy to prove our points of faith, in the Bible Studies that we give, and we are not even to give too much Scripture—lest we confuse their minds by giving too much at one time.

In one moment, Desmond Ford will heartily praise the Spirit of Prophecy, but in the next, his true feelings will burst forth in strong words and expressions.

If you believe in the writings of Ellen White and their earmarks of Inspiration, and what they have done for your own life, then you will clearly recognize the intentions of Dr. Ford. Recently, on a neighboring farm, a friend of mine saw a coyote drive the flock from their protection, then separate them into two flocks to render them the more vulnerable, and then turn and go in to claim some for himself, when my neighbor stopped him in his tracks. Ford knows he must separate you from the Spirit of Prophecy before he can successfully instill within you his own speculative ideas. He is telling you that his interpretation of Scripture is safer and more accurate than is the Spirit of Prophecy interpretation of Scripture. Think about that for a moment. He knows that the stakes are high—he must separate you from the Testimonies or he can never achieve the coveted position of master-theologian to our church today. But first must come the separation. Will you be separated?

God has sought to confirm His people’s faith in the Spirit of Prophecy (1SM 41), which has carefully taught them that which they need (4T 12-13). We are to follow the directions given us through the Spirit of Prophecy (GW 308, 8T 298), for it has been given us to safeguard us against delusion (1SM 48, 8T 298). Satan works to cast doubt upon it (2SM 91), and men will arise who have more confidence in themselves than in it (4T 330). Its writings will speak as long as time shall last (1 SM 55, 9T 8), and they should be printed and reprinted for the benefit of God’s people (CW 26).

"Why do we use the Testimonies?" Throughout this Reply we have used the Bible in support of our historic position, in every case, in Dr. Ford’s lecture, where the Biblical basis of our beliefs has been called into question. And in those instances when an attempt has been made to use the Spirit of Prophecy in support of error, we have used these Inspired Words, themselves, as the basis for our Reply. "Why do we use the Testimonies?" Because the Testimonies of the Spirit were given us to read and study and use. "All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16. And the Spirit of Prophecy is Scripture, equal with the rest of the Inspired Word in the Bible—equal for personal use and church guidance in doctrine and all other matters that it pertains to—health, nutrition, history, science, clothing, education, methods of evangelism, Biblical interpretation, and Christian standards. When God through His servants speaks on a topic, that topic is given us because we need it, and better than we could obtain it anywhere else. We shall soon refer to scores of passages in which we are urgently counseled to use these special messages for our day, and to apply them to our life and work.

There are only a few such passages as the one found in Evangelism 256:2. In every such case, the reference is to our presentation of the reasons for our beliefs in Bible studies, cottage meetings and public evangelism to those not of our faith. Read the following passages: Ev 255-260, 1T 119-120, ST 669. But we are also counseled to share the Spirit of Prophecy books with those around us. Not only DA, SC, GC, PP, COL,—but other books as well—and even the nine volumes of the Testimonies, themselves! (4T 390) We are not to be ashamed of the Word of God. It is to be our strength, not our weakness. And we are to read deeply into the precious Bible and thoroughly know it as well, just as we are to study into the Spirit of Prophecy. Never are we to set Scripture aside for Scripture.

"Let me tell you Ellen White’s role: Ellen White’s role is pastoral, not canonical. —Not canonical. You have more writings of Ellen White than you have in the Bible. She is not canonical! The Gift of Prophecy is not the gift of omniscience! Adventists think that anything Ellen White spoke about—that’s the whole truth, nothing but the truth—but it isn’t so."

We have in this lecture a two-pronged attack against both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy—first one and then the other, and back again, as you are seeing. —Not adequate, not competent, not thorough, not complete, not authoritative, not accurate, not reliable. This is the message constantly dinned into our ears.

And now Dr. Ford’s word to us is that the Spirit of Prophecy is only "half-Scripture." It may be used for pastoral purposes (sweet comfort and encouragment),—but absolutely not for canonical purposes (doctrinal instruction. warning, admonition, prediction, or for accuracy in historical, scientific, chronological, health, nutritional, physiological, or similar areas). It may be good for comforting the ignorant before they die, but that’s about all.

And what is all this talk about "pastoral" vs. "canonical?" It is nothing but imagined theological terms that Ford and his friends and students dreamed up as a means of avoiding the Straight Testimony in their own lives and in relation to what they are teaching. Are the terms Scriptural? "Pastor" is found nine times in the Bible (K.J.V.) and means "shepherd" as a guide to sheep or to men. And can you imagine a pastor who does not admonish, instruct, or give doctrinal information? They cannot be separated.

You will not find the word "canon" or "canonical" anywhere in the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy. The term "canonization" has reference to the acceptance by the Jewish people of the divine origin and authority of the Old Testament Scriptures. Later, this occurred again among the Christians, as they accepted the New Testament books as Inspired. And so what does "canonization" mean to us? Do you accept the Spirit of Prophecy as Inspired by God? Then you accept it as "Canonical." Does Dr. Ford accept the Spirit of Prophecy as fully Inspired of God?—No, he does not. In fact he goes to great lengths to convince us of its general incompetence. Then for him it is "not canonical." And then he quickly tells what he especially means by this: He tells us that the precious Spirit of Prophecy is not good for doctrinal truth, or for accuracy in regard to anything that it speaks about. Thank you, Dr. Ford, for telling us where you stand in this matter. Your rejection of the Spirit of Prophecy enables us the more clearly to reject your specious errors.

I first ran into this argument, but not under these terms, at our Seminary in 1958, when Martin and Barnhouse were visiting next door with some of our leadership in the General Conference building. In order that we might more fully conform with the Protestant churches, the teaching was introduced at that time that the Spirit of Prophecy is not Inspired to the degree that the Bible is Inspired. But no Scriptural evidence for this assertion was ever forthcoming. Our only safety in this matter is to understand the Nature of Inspiration itself. And to do so is not complicated:

(1) To the degree that you and I will submit to God, He will guide our individual purposes, thoughts, and actions. This is Divine Guidance. But we are not Inspired as Scripture is Inspired. (2) One writing or speaking under Inspiration speaks divine truth, with a freedom from error, that is not otherwise possible for mankind to achieve. The prophet is given a message for his time that is of vital concern. None of it is unimportant, none of it is unnecessary. What he presents is urgently needed,—for never in Scripture does God give what is not needed. And if you will read the Word of God with this thought in mind, it will become much more meaningful in your life. (3) There is no such thing as "half inspired," or "partly Inspired." This is only the fiction of men. Such a thing has never existed at any time in human history. A man is either Inspired by God or he isn’t. He is either fully Inspired or he is not Inspired at all, in the sense of Scriptural Inspiration. Ford’s statements about partly-this and partly-notthat is speculative nonsense. (4) Half-Inspiration is no-Inspiration—and Ford knows it. First he applies it to the writings of the Spirit of Propehcy, and then, as we shall soon see, he turns his guns on the Bible writers, themselves. He must weaken both Inspired Sources in order to be assured that his ideas will bear sway in Adventism. It is for this reason that he is picking, picking, always picking at any and every possible "error" in the Inspired Writings.

38 - The Authorship of Hebrews

Example: The authorship of Hebrews. Paul’s name isn’t on the book. Many non-Adventist commentators, trying by their unaided wisdom to determine its authorship, have assigned it to the apostle Paul, due to the sheer theological depth and the acquaintance with Old Testament sources that it reveals. Who but Paul could produce such a work? This is the conclusion of many men. Now, if Peter had but once identified the author of Hebrews, there would be no question as to its authorship, but when Ellen White tells us eight times between pages 413 and 421 of the book, Great Controversy, that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, Desmond Ford looks with contempt upon such information as being unworthy of his serious attention. Ford believes that the very fact that she would name Paul as its author proves her inaccuracy as an Inspired writer! Is not one moved by the Spirit of God to give information! He will not allow her to say anything deeper than his mind can go. Poor vain mortal! She is not to be permitted to give us any knowledge that Desmond Ford cannot give us—and Ford cannot tell us who the author of Hebrews is. Dr. Ford considers the Spirit of Prophecy to be a laughing stock, and as he personally considers it, so he treats it before others. It would have been better for him in the Judgment if he had stayed in the Anglican Church, rather than to have spent a lifetime trying to bring fallen Protestantism in among the Remnant. Some may consider my words strong, but they are nonetheless correct. We don’t need Aaron’s today to say, "Poor Dr. Ford. He just doesn’t understand. We must be patient with him and give him time." He has had thirty years of time, and he is today taking countless people out of the church. The knowledgable among us know the truth of this.

Eric Syme, another Pacific Union College teacher, agreed with this error publically before the students, less than fifteen minutes after Ford finished speaking. Syme said, "The authorship of Hebrews will be settled by perspiration, not by Inspiration." (laughter) This anti-Biblical attitude, coming from the lips of Adventist College teachers is disturbing. Are these the men we are supporting with salary that they may corrupt the minds of our youth? Ford and Syme and their kin are determined that Man’s Mind is to be the Master of all thinking, all concluding, all truth. This is the pagan concept of the ancient Greeks. And now we are paying men to bring it into our own church.

39 - The Instructional and Doctrinal Role of the Spirit of Prophecy

Here are some passages to consider in regard to this matter of the Spirit of Propehcy and doctrine, guidance and our acceptance of those writings: First we should consider for further study, passages dealing with the relationship of the Spirit of Prophecy to the development of Adventist faith and doctrine (Ev 2S7, 1SM 41-42, 48, 162, 206-208, TM 24-26, GW 302. 307-307-308, ST 6S4, 8T 297-298), for these reveal the important part the Testimonies of God have acted in establishing present truth among us as a people (Ev 257). Through it comes to the church the warning words of the angel (ST S36-S37), and warnings against fanaticism (L.S. 77-94, 133, MM 103, 2SG 46-52, 75-79, 2SM 41, 1T 66-67, 5T 592, 655-656), and reproving of secret sins (LS 177), pointing out of dangers. errors, and sins of various individuals for the benefit of all (ST 660), and for the reproof of His people (ST 679), and, on occasion, they have saved the Cause from disaster in a time of crisis (1SM 27, 5T 65). The Spirit of Propehcy has been interwoven with the rise and progress of the Third Angel’s Message (2SG 297), and it is responsible for the origin and development of many Adventist institutions and enterprises (LS 196). Some falsely accuse the writer of the Testimonies of putting her own opinion in them (1T 234), and others say that her opinion cannot be reliable (3T 313), or that what she wrote was simply human opinion (1SM 38). Some falsely accredit it to no higher source than human wisdom (TM 466), but what she wrote did not originate with her (CM 125), for it was instruction that God gave her (CM 125). The Testimonies are either of the Spirit of God or of the devil (4T 230, ST 671), they either bear the signet of God or the mark of Satan (ST 98), and some by their attitude toward the Testimonies insult the Spirit of God (1SM 27, ST 64-65).

"Satan is . . constantly pressing in the spurious—to lead away from the truth. The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish . . Satan will work ingenioilsly, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God’s remnant people in the true testimony.

FF-14

"There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them, for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs of the Spirit of God are heeded."—Selected Messages, book 1, page 48 (2SM 78 is similar but not identical).

These writings were given of God to awaken sinners to their duty (5T 667), bring God’s people into unity (3T 360-361), fit a people to stand in the last days (1SM 41-42, 45), instruct men concerning the will of God (5T 661), and the course they should take (ST 661). The Testimonies were given to leave God’s people without excuse (ST 663), perfect holiness in His people (2T 452-453, ST 662), point out defects of character (ST 234, 674), and sins to be shunned (2T 605, ST 662, 664-665), safeguard God’s people against delusion (GW 308, 1SM 31, 48, 8T 298), separate sin from God’s people (2T 452-453, ST 662), separate wrongdoers from among God’s people (3T 324, ST 676), warn, counsel, reprove, comfort, and encourage His people (LS 199, 2T 605-606, ST 665, TM 42). God has shaped the Testimonies to meet all cases needing help (2T 607-608, ST 667), and is testing His people by means of this Prophetic Guidance (ST 72). Within it is to be found instructions for all of God’s people (SD 178), and indeed, they wall God’s people in with reproofs, counsel, warnings, and encouragements (LS 199, 2T 606).

"There are those who think they are able to measure the character and to estimate the importance of the work the Lord has given me to do. Their own mind and judgment is the standard by which they would weigh the testimonies. My Instructor said to me, ‘Tell those men that God has not committed to them the work of measuring, classifying, and defining the character of the testimonies. Those who attempt this are sure to err in their conclusions. The Lord would have men adhere to their appointed work.’ If they will keep the way of the Lord, they will be able to discern clearly that the work which He has appointed me to do is not a work of human devising. Those who read the testimonies as they have appeared from the early days, need not be perplexed as to their origin."—1SM, 49-50.

‘Those who want to doubt the Testimonies, will have plenty of room (3T 255), and those who do so are on dangerous ground (6T 680), especially those who fill the minds of newcomers into our church with doubts (ST 673), and those who would seek to create prejudice against these Inspired Writings (4T 232). It is the rebellious who will seek to shake faith in the Spirit of Prophecy (ST 19), and it is the false teachers who try to place these statements "in a framework of error" (TM 42, 52), by making these writings a "textbook" in which to locate something to quibble about (1SM 69). Those who seek to lessen faith in the Testimonies are actually fighting against God (1SM 40, 3T 260), and this includes those who work secretly against it (ST 673), by questioning and quibbling (3T 255). But those whom Satan especially uses to undermine faith in the Spirit of Prophecy are men in positions of responsibility among us (ST 670). Satan uses such to cast doubt upon, and stigmatize the Testimonies as false utterances (2SM 285), and to hold them up to ridicule (1SM 42). Men despise the Testimonies because they do not coincide with their own plans (ST 689). The Spirit of Prophecy cannot be rejected or lightly treated without the peril of infinite loss (LS 324-325), and efforts to lessen the force of the Testimonies must be met in the Judgment (5T 19, 677). Ministers deceived regarding the Spirit of Prophecy, will deceive others (1SM 51-52). Unbelief regarding the Testimonies shuts away light from God’s people (3T 255, ST 674).

"The Gift of Prophecy is not the Gift of Omniscience . . And how do we know? Because she often said something different in another book. ‘John the Baptist was the greatest of the prophets,’ said Jesus, ‘among those born of women.’—He didn’t have everything straight. He spoke of Christ, ‘He’ll purge them, He’ll gather the wheat into His garner, He’ll burn up the chaff with fire—.’ And he meant then. He didn’t have everything straight. He didn’t understand about the kingdom of grace; he didn’t understand about the spiritual kingdom. He looked for a material kingdom—and pronto. My friends, the Gift of Prophecy is not the gift of omniscience. Ellen White would be burdened beyond measure if she thought she was supposed to know everything about everything. We don’t know everything about anything! (laughter) Everything’s related to everything else, therefore you’ve got to know everything about everything in order to know anything about anything! (laughter) . . So the Gift of Prophecy is not inerrant. Please sometime read what Ellen White said about her own gift—in Selected Messages, volume 1, the first chapter. My friends, we must understand the nature of inspiration. Inspiration like all the acts of God is beyond our comprehension."

"She often said something different in another book." If Dr. Ford meant by this, that she often gave additional information elsewhere, his point would be meaningless. So he must mean that she gave contradictory information in her different books—and this is not correct, as you and I well know. And then, in order to strengthen his argument against the Spirit of Prophecy, he turns against Biblical prophets as well. "Down-Grade" is the middle name for this lecture. Down-grade the Sanctuary Service, the Investigative Judgment, the First Apartment, the Second Apartment, the Day of Atonement, the Inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy—and soon, the Inspiration of the Bible as well.

The key word in his argument here is "omniscience." And what is omniscience? It is "all-knowingness." Ford is here, as earlier, setting up a straw man and then knocking it over, in order that he may fool us into thinking a real man has been successfully challenged. Inspiration is not all-knowingness. Scripture has never said it was, and no one that you or I have met ever thought it was. And such a thought has never occurred as an issue in the theological controversies of past centuries. Who expects Scripture to tell us everything about everything? Who believes that this is what "inspired" means? —No one. And that includes Dr. Ford. He well knows what he is trying to do here. He would have to be very ignorant in theological and church history lines not to know what he is doing. He is trying to destroy the Spirit of Prophecy in our minds by disproving something it never had. This is intellectual dishonesty, and in view of what it is accomplishing, it is also a wicked act. And what is his conclusion? The Spirit of Prophecy is not omniscient, therefore it is not "inerrant." We will speak more about this shortly, since Dr. Ford has much more to say about it. What is "inerrant" and "infallible?" Inerrant means "free from error." Infallible means "not fallible [erring], exempt from liability to error." Ford says that because the Inspired Word is not "all-knowing," therefore it is "erring." This is not true. No passage given by Inspiration of God is "all-knowing" (by Ford’s correct definition—knowing all about everything in the world), but it is unerring—it is free from error.

Dr. Ford tells us to read 1 Selected Messages, the first chapter. Well let’s do so. This chapter tells us two things: (1) There have been and will again be men who will try to twist the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy to mean whatever they want it to mean, or lacking this, will down-grade its inspiration and enjoy pointing out its "errors." (Read 1SM 16:1, 17:1-18:1, 19:1-2, 23:1). And this includes men who try "measuring by their finite rule that which is inspired and that which is not inspired," who instead should "cover their faces," for "they are in the presence of God and holy angels." (1SM 17:1) And it includes Adventist college teachers who teach that there are "differences in degrees of inspiration." (Read 1SM 23:1 and footnote) —This is exactly what Desmond Ford is teaching ("canonical and non-canonical inspiration").

Then, (2), this chapter tells us more clearly than anywhere else inherent weaknesses in Bible transcription and our reading of it—but it doesn’t say what Dr. Ford wants it to say. He wants us to believe that Bible and Spirit of Prophecy are erring. But we are never told here or elsewhere that the Inspired Word has error—only that it came to us through human language (19:3), imperfect human language—imperfect in that different meanings can be applied to the same word (20:2), and though imperfect human speech was used, the Inspired writers used the best expressions they could find in order to convey their message (22:3). The Word was given as we need it (19:4-20:1), though not always in exact order of sequence in which it happened (20:1). The men were inspired and their utterances were inspired (21:2), and what they said revealed their individual personality in writing (22:0-2), and indeed, there is a variety of insight given throughout the Scriptures (21:3-22:0). In order to reach us, copies were made, and copyist errors could occur (16:2). And now as men come to the Word, they bring with them their imperfections of understanding their human language (19:3), and they come with different viewpoints and levels of prior understanding (20:3-21:0). But in all that you have read, there is no fault with the Inspired Word itself. There is no error in it, though we may attach error to it, and interpret error into it.

42 - Scripture is In fallible

Earlier, knowing that the meaning of ta hagia was the key to Hebrews Nine, Dr. Ford told us that we cannot know what it means—and then proceeded to tell us repeatedly how he thought it should be translated. And in this part of the lecture, knowing that the meaning of Inspiration is the key to our acceptance or rejection of the Spirit of Prophecy passages that oppose him, he tells us that Inspiration is beyond our comprehension and then he proceeds to tell us of the ways he has dissected and split it up for us.

"My friends, we must understand the nature of Inspiration. Inspiration like all the acts of God is beyond our comprehension . . The glorious sun under which we walk has spots on it. —Shall we therefore walk in some subterranean channel? Think of the type of man He chose to write the epistles in the New Testament: He chose a theologian. He could have chosen a fisherman but He didn’t. Think of who He chose to write the gospels. People that were closely with Jesus Christ in the flesh, or closely associated with those that did. If Inspiration was what many people think, He could have taken any schoolboy, put a pen in his hand, a quill, and said "Write." Didn’t do it that way. We need to understand what Inspiration’s about . . Inspiration is not inerrancy . . The Bible is the only source of truth unmixed with error—which suggests that even the writings of the non-canonical prophets were not inerrant. In fact, if you will apply a strict rule—even the writings of the Bible are not inerrant—and if that sounds blasphemous, that is our official position,—which doesn’t make it right, but it makes it respectable (laughter) . . When Ellen White put out Spiritual Gifts, the first 400 volumes [sic: pages], she said "Please correct me where I’ve made any mistakes, my memory might have been wrong. Please correct me so I can change it."

Ford is telling us that even though the sun has imperfections we must put up with them,—and use it anyway, and in the same manner, in spite of the errors of Scripture, it can still be a help to us.

‘And then he discusses a topic that has nothing to do with anything dealing with the lecture. Speakers wander occasionally from fatigue, but even the direction of their straying is revealing. Ford shares with us some of his personal feelings, that the best of all people are the theologians. Not the people who have to work and sweat so they can pay the salaries of college teachers. Dr. Ford says it was "theologians" who wrote the New Testament Epistles, not working men, or tradesmen. Such would not have been qualified. And certainly, He did not call fishermen to this task. But, Dr. Ford, Paul a tent-maker wrote fourteen of the epistles. Paul was so pleased that he could weave goat’s-hair into cilicium, and thence into tents, sails, and awnings, that he and Luke mentioned the fact six times in four books of the New Testament. Peter and John, both fisherman wrote five of the epistles. This trade, through which they were trained into the rugged stamina needed for their later work, is mentioned four times in Scripture in three different books. The Bible writers apparently valued men who could work with their hands. The men who wrote the books of the Bible were not learned theologians, but rather, they were humble common men who had experienced a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and it had changed their lives. God would have liked to use the wise and the talented, but generally He could not reach them. They were too proud. He had to use simple folk whose only wisdom was the Word of God to do the work that needed to be done. Read Desire of Ages, 249:0-251:2, 809:2.

And, again, Dr. Ford comes back to the fallible errancy of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. Not strength in the Word, but weakness,—this is the message Ford brings his students. Elder A.L. White, for thirty years Secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate, in his own Reply to this lecture of Desmond Ford, tells us about this footnote in Spiritual Gifts: "The speaker failed to mention that this statement appeared in volume two, given over to an autobiographical account, for which she made no claims for Divine Guidance. No such statement ever appeared in any other Ellen G. White book. It should be noted that volumes 1, 3 and 4 of Spiritual Gifts presented her first writing on the Great Controversy story, for which, in the volumes themselves, she does claim Divine Guidance. And she does not call for any corrections. It would seem that the speaker [Dr. Ford], eager to show Ellen White’s works somewhat short of being reliable, used" this "statement."

But now, it is time to directly face this charge of "errancy" in the Word of God. As clearly as he can say it, Dr. Ford tells us that the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy has had error in it from the day they were written—and that we had better know it. Not here the thought that occasionally a copyist’s error may have crept in—but rather the inherent erring nature of Divine Inspiration itself. The thought is that it just isn’t very reliable, and we had better realize it.

There is no statement anywhere in the Bible that Inspiration contains error. And if you search carefully, you will nowhere find in the Spirit of Prophecy that those writing under Divine Inspiration ever wrote error. This is an idea read into what she wrote—but not actually to be found in it. You may have heard it taught—it was first taught to me at our Seminary—but it is not true.

‘So much for fallibility and error-ness. Let us see what Scripture says about its accuracy. The Bible teaches that the Inspired Word is a perfect guide, and men, though fools will not err therein (2 Tim 3:15-17, Jn 5:39, 1 Pet 1:8-11, Rom 15:4, 2 Pet 1:21, Ps 19:7-11, 119:9, 11 and many more). And then we have the testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy. We will find within it not one statement that what men wrote under Inspiration was erring,—but there are many statements given us that what they wrote was unerring: The distinctive doctrine of Protestantism is the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Scriptures (GC 173-174, 177, SR 337). Dr. Ford mentions that "God alone is infallible" (1SM 37, TM 30, 105), but he omits mentioning that "God’s Word is infallible" (1SM 416). The Inspired Word comes from God—and divine power is infallible (TM 485). Ulric Zwingli regarded Scripture as an Infallible Rule (GC 173), and an Infallible Authority (GC 173-174, 177), and, indeed, the Inspired Word is an Infallible Revelation of God’s will (GC 7). John Wycliffe also recognized Scripture as infallible (GC 89). It was an unerring pen that traced the history that Moses wrote [Genesis through Deuteronomy] with fidelity (4T 370). We must beware of learned men who will try to unsettle minds in regard to the Inspiration of the Word of God (1SM 17). We can expect this of other seminaries and colleges (CT 45), but surely, we should not find it in our own. We may safely make the Word of God our guide and safeguard (2SM 326). It is so thorough and deep that no human mind can exhaust the depth of even one verse (Ed 171). Altogether, it forms a perfect chain of truth (FE 188), and it forms a perfect whole (1SM 26, GC 6).

In view of the above statements, I would be very surprised to learn that our official position as a church is the errancy of Scripture—the "error-ness" of God’s Word. And, upon examination, I find that this too is another fabrication of Dr. Ford’s. Why does this man dwell so much on the error of Scripture, when he has so much error in his own words? The only official statement of beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to be found in its "Statement of Beliefs" in the S.D.A.

Yearbook. Here it is: "1 - That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, contain an all-sufficient revelation of His will to men, and are the only unerring rule of faith and practice. 2 Tim. 3:15-17."—S.D.A. Yearbook, 1979 Edition, page 5. This statement of beliefs is only rarely revised, but a revision is just now in process, and will be completed and made official by the 1980 General Conference. The tentative revision, recently printed in the Review, is very nearly the same as the above, and concludes with the following:

" . . . the only unerring standard of faith and practice."—Review, February 21, 1980, page 8.

"Ellen White nowhere claims to be the inspired commentary on the Scriptures, my friends, she said the Bible is yet but dimly understood. And she didn’t say in back of it, ‘But if you’ll read all my writings that problem will be solved.’ She said the Bible is but dimly understood. She said when the books of Daniel and Revelation are better understood, there will be a revival amongst us. We haven’t had the revival yet. Apparently they’re not well understood. And she didn’t interpret them for us. She wasn’t given to make us lazy! She said, ‘Go to the Word.’"

It is very important that Dr. Ford eliminate Great Controversy before it eliminates his theories. Its able Biblical analyses reveals the humbug in his prophetic interpretations.

Under consideration here is the prophecy of the fifth and sixth trumpet in Revelation Nine. Ellen White makes no comment on the first four trumpets, but she refers to the fifth and sixth in Great Controversy, 334:4-335:1 (and note the appendix comment given on page 691:1-3). Dr. Ford tells us that this interpretation of Litch, endorsed by Ellen White, is not true—simply by telling us it is not true. The background of the matter is that Josiah Litch, one of the foremost of the Advent preachers, calculated the time period of this prophecy and declared that in the month of August, 1840, the Ottoman (Turkish) power would lose its independence. He published this in June of 1838. This prediction caused much comment as well as much ridicule. Then prior to the event he predicted it would occur on the eleventh of August, 1840. When the news of the collapse of the sultan’s once strong empire was flashed to an unbelieving world, the effect was tremendous. Many looked with new respect upon the Biblical prophecies of the "Advent near," that were being heralded from state to state and nation to nation by men raised up for this purpose. But of course, it’s easy for an armchair detective to deny it all. Just say it isn’t true. And so, Dr. Ford has vanquished Litch’s prophecy, "with a period and not a point"—or at least he hopes he has.

‘The five prophetic months of the fifth trumpet (Rev 9:5) describes the harassment of the medieval church by Moslems, and began when Othman I led the invasion of Eastern Rome on July 27, 1299, and ended on July 27, 1449. The sixth trumpet describes the time when the Turks—allies of the Arabs —gained supremacy in the East. Just four years after the commencement of the sixth trumpet, Eastern Rome collapsed when the Turkish Sultan Mohammed II captured Constantinople. Then began a further chapter of oppression of the Christians.

The time of the sixth trumpet is designated as an hour, a day, a month, and a year (Rev 9:14-15). In literal time this would be 360 years, 30 years, 1 year, and 1/24th of a year or 15 days,—a total of 391 years 15 days. As the fifth trumpet ended July 27, 1449, the sixth trumpet would end August 11, 1840. If the sixth trumpet reveals the time of the supremacy of the Turks, then the end of the sixth trumpet would reveal the end of that supremacy. Josiah Litch predicted that Turkey would lose this supremacy on August 11, 1840. Ultimately the Turkish Sultan formally placed Turkey in the hands of the ambassadors of four Christian nations—England, Austria, Russia, and Prussia. The date of the declaration—August 11, 1840.

Dr. Ford can’t believe that such could be true, for it would smash his cherished Futurism ideas—that all Bible prophecy fulfilled after Old Testament times, are fulfilled either around the time of the death of Christ or at, or just prior to, the Second Coming of Christ—and at no other time. For this is what he was taught at Manchester University (1970-1972) by F.F. Bruce—the leading theologian of the Plymouth Brethren and the outstanding advocate of Protestant Futurism in our time. Now, what if I were to tell you that the prophetic interpretation of the prophecies of Isaiah 44:24-45:13, and Daniel 5:17-28, given in Prophets and Kings, 529-533 (that Babylon would be conquered by Medo-Persia), were not correct—you would have good reason to laugh at me, for the acid test of prophecy was met—the interpretation was signally fulfilled exactly as predicted.

Josiah Litch’s prediction was more accurate than Desmond Ford’s speculations have shown themselves to be. Throughout this lecture of October 27, we have repeatedly found erroneous sources, premises, statements, analyses, and conclusions. Elder Litch’s prophetic interpretation, although surprisingly accurate, is rejected by Dr. Ford because it will not fit into Futurism ("Calvary and Second Advent Fulfillments"), and is relegated by him to his Great Advent Scrapheap of worthless information.

"And still to leave out the cleansing of the sanctuary! If you’ll only read Patriarchs and Prophets, written years after. But in the chapter ‘The Tabernacle and the [its] Services,’ she explains the cleansing of the sanctuary, a cleansing of the earth and the whole universe from sin, at the very end of time. So to apply Daniel 8:14 just to 1844 only, is to misunderstand it entirely . . . When we preach it [the cross] instead of preaching celestial geography [the sanctuary service], then Jesus will come. It was a good American that said, ‘God offers every man,’ and I might add, every movement, ‘truth or repose.’ You can take one or the other but you can’t have both." (15 seconds of applause)

44- Great Controversy—Our Most Important Book

"Great Controversy is a historical account of prophetic interpretation by Seventh-day Adventists, at the time of the birth of that movement." This statement by Dr. Ford is a flagrant violation of historical fact. The birth of our movement was in 1844-1845 when the Sanctuary group under Edson, Crosier and Hahn, met and united with the Sabbath group under Bates and the Prophetic Gift group under James and Ellen White. There were very, very few of the distinctive and specialized teachings of Great Controversy that were known or believed by the brethren at the time of the birth of our movement. Dr. Ford well knew this when he gave this comment. Nor were many of its distinctive insights known four years later when the Sabbath Conferences convened at which time our basic doctrinal beliefs were given us through prayerful Bible study and prophetic vision. Great Controversy was not written "at the time of the birth of that movement." As A.L. White pointed out in his Reply to this same lecture, this book, Great Controversy, produced in 1888, and then placed in final revision in 1911, four years before her death, contains her latest views on the subjects it deals with. Indeed, prior to her death, only Counsels to Parents and Teachers (1913), and the enlarged edition of Gospel Workers (1915) were published. Great Controversy represents one of the richest and most thorough statements of doctrinal truth for these last days, given to Seventh-day Adventists, to be shared by them with a dying world. Anyone who reads this book and believes its messages will not go around telling people that we have received "no doctrines" through Ellen White. Our church today currently publishes few books that contain more doctrine than does the book, Great Controversy. Dr. Ford’s statement regarding the origin of this book, is clearly a falsehood, and coming as it does from one who is knowledgeable in such matters, it stands as a deliberate falsehood, given to undermine the one book that directly stands in his way. Many of our people today are not reading the Word of God for themselves as they should, and are all too liable to deception by a good talker with specious reasoning. But if they will set aside their television and radio and their library of cassette sermons and read Great Controversy for themselves they will recognize the error in what Dr. Ford is bringing to them.

Our tract, "The Circulation of Great Controversy," compiled by Elder A.L. White in the early 1930's at the White Estate, and our cassette, "The Story of the Writing of Great Controversy," provides nearly every extant quotation from Inspiration regarding the origin, writing, and importance of this very special book.

"I was shown that . . . the warning [of Great Controversy] must go where the living messenger could not go, and that it would call the attention of many to the important events to occur in the closing scenes of this world’s history."—Letter 1, 1890.

"The Great Controversy should be very widely circulated. It contains the story of the past, the present, and the future. In its outline of the closing scenes of this earth’s history, it bears a powerful testimony in behalf of the truth. I am more anxious to see a wide circulation for this book than for any others I have written; for in the Great Controversy, the last message of warning to the world is given more distinctly than in any of my other books."—Letter 281, 1905.

"The Lord has set before me matters which are of urgent importance for the present time, and which reach into the future. These words have been spoken in a charge to me, ‘Write in a book the things which thou hast seen and heard, and let it go to all the people, for the time is at hand when past history will be repeated."—Letter 1, 1890.

"As soon as Great Controversy came from the press, it should have been pushed above every other book. I have been shown this."—Letter 39, 1899.

"She could talk about the signs in the sun, moon, and stars . . . Some of this seems like chasing rabbits. Ford can dream up problems faster than the rest of us can chase them down. And he seems to think that all this is somehow going to hasten the coming of Jesus. Take the Falling of the Stars, for example. Dr. Ford, in harmony with his Futurism theory of Bible prophecy, believes this event must occur at the Second Advent. The Bible places it as occuring at some time between the great Apostasy of the Dark Ages—the great tribulation (Matt 24:29, Mk 13:24), and the Second Coming of Christ (Matt 24:30, Mk 13:26). Great Controversy, 333:1-334:3 applies it to the year 1833. Nowhere else in the Spirit of Prophecy is another application given for this dramatic event. Dr. Ford believes that it will happen again, a second time, just prior to the return of Christ. And he says that Great Controversy "isn’t complete" because it doesn’t mention his idea of a second fulfillment. Both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy speak of one dramatic falling of the stars before the Second Advent. And Great Controversy, 333-334 dates the event as occurring on November 13, 1833. Now someone could come along and tell us that there will be six faIlings of the stars before the Second Coming, instead of one. I cannot say he is wrong because I cannot read the future. But I can tell him that only one such occurrence is described in Scripture, and that Scripture is not "incomplete" just because it overlooked mentioning the other five that he recently invented.

Patriarchs and Prophets vrs. Great Controversy—Dr. Ford uses here a pattern of reasoning that is unusual. We have seen it several times in this lecture. We might call it a "divide and conquer" technique—divide Scripture and conquer the Church. He did this just before this with Christ’s Object Lessons vrs. Great Controversy, implying that because the former did not give the historical background of the Midnight Cry, this meant something very significant. Hebrews Nine he tried to separate from Daniel 8:14 and the typical Daily Sanctuary Service given in Moses’ writings, that he might avoid the truth of what Christ did in 31 A.D. Daniel 8:14 and the Cleansing of the Sanctuary was separated from its twin—chapter Seven and the Investigative Judgment, which so fully explains the Little Horn in relation to the Cleansing of the Sanctuary. And now he tries to do it again—tear Patriarchs and Prophets, chapter 27 away from Great Controversy, chapter 23—the two major explanations of the Sanctuary Service. Divide and Conquer. The thought is (1) either she wasn’t inspired because she "omitted something," or, (2) the passage that omitted something was really teaching a secret mysterious something that Dr. Ford has discovered for us.

FF - 15

And so it is, that as a finale for his lecture, Dr. Ford tells us that Patriarchs and Prophets "written years after" Great Controversy (A. L. White tells us they were only written five to seven years apart), very clearly leaves the "Cleansing of the Sanctuary" truth out of the Day of Atonement Service. Which is quite a dramatic statement. But it isn’t true. Dr. Ford, why do you tell things that are not true to your students? Is there no honest way in which you can disprove our doctrines, that you must use dishonest ways? Carefully read Patriarchs and Prophets, the chapter on "The Tabernacle and its Services," the pages dealing with the Day of Atonement: 348:1, 354:2-356:0 for the Cleansing of the Sanctuary in type in the earthly Day of Atonement, and pages 357:2-358:1 for the Cleansing of the Sanctuary in antitype on the Day of Atonement in the great Sanctuary above. The cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary from sin in the final atonement is clearly taught here—the same truth that is taught in Great Controversy, 418:1-422:1. The Sanctuary is cleansed of sin (cf. Lev 16:19, 29-34). And it results in the Scapegoat Transaction, by which the sin removed from the records of the Sanctuary are accounted to Satan, and he with his followers are forever destroyed, as described in both books (PP 358: 2-3, GC 419:2, 422:2, Lev 16:20-22). Patriarchs and Prophets does not have a different teaching on the Cleansing of the Sanctuary than is to be found in Great Controversy. Both teach a cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary, followed by the destruction of sin and sinners on earth. Dr. Ford and I are inadequate in our thinking, but the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy never are. They provide us with a complete system of truth.

"So to apply Daniel 8:14 just to 1844 only, is to misunderstand it entirely." And Dr. Ford does just this—after thirty years of study, he misunderstands it entirely. We do not apply Daniel 8:14 "just to 1844." We believe it began in 1844, continues today, and will soon pass to the living. We as a people do not believe that the Cleansing of the Sanctuary was an event that took place nearly 140 years ago.

46 - Scripture Explains Scripture

The Midnight Cry took place between the time Samuel Snow delivered his first Exeter sermon and the Great Disappointment (August 12 to October 22, 1844). Dr. Ford is here referring to the fact that both Great Controversy and Christ’s Object Lessons mentions the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-10), but that while Great Controversy explains the Midnight Cry in its historical setting, Christ’s Object Lessons does not. The topic is mentioned on page 412:1 of Christ Object Lessons. Why did not this page also provide the historical background of this very important event? First, why would it have to? It was already thoroughly covered in Great Controversy. Second, it couldn’t have explained the topic on this page. Where in Great Controversy is the historical background of the Midnight Cry given? It is given in chapters 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24—spanning a range of 116 pages. And it is not possible for a competent writer to explain this event to a non-Adventist without explaining the entire Millerite Movement. Christ’s Object Lessons was written as a book on the parables of Christ, to be sold as a colporteur book to relieve the indebtedness on our church schools at the turn of the century. How could this relatively small book (in comparison with the size of Great Controversy), properly deal with such an extensive subject in a book on parables? Why should it deal with this subject? Read what Great Controversy tells about this topic—and then consider whether you could have explained it to one not of our faith in less than twenty to fifty pages (GC 393-395, 398, 400, 402, 426-428).

47 - The Sanctuary in Heaven is the Key to our Future

"When we preach it instead of preaching celestial geography, then Jesus will come." The Third Angel points us to the Heavenly Sanctuary, that we may see our work at this time of earth’s history. When we preach it instead of theological speculation, then Jesus will return.

"The subject of the Sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious, showing that God’s hand had directed the Great Advent Movement, and revealing present duty as it brought to light the position and work of His people . . Light from the Sanctuary illumined the past, the present, and the future."—Great Controversy, 423:1.

"The Third Angel closes his Message thus: ‘Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the Commandments of God, and the Faith of Jesus.’ As he repeated these words, he pointed to the Heavenly Sanctuary. The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the Most Holy Place where Jesus stands before the ark, making His Final Atonement. . . I saw the Third Angel pointing upward, showing the disappointed ones the way to the holiest of the Heavenly Sanctuary. As they by faith enter the Most Holy, they find Jesus, and hope and joy spring up anew . . . Many who embraced the Third Message had not had an experience in the two former Messages. Satan understood this, and his evil eye was upon them to overthrow them; but the Third Angel was pointing them to the Most Holy Place, and those who had an experience in the past messages were pointing them the way to the Heavenly Sanctuary. Many saw the perfect chain of truth in the Angels’ Messages, and gladly received them in their order, and followed Jesus by faith into the Heavenly Sanctuary. These Messages were represented to me as an anchor to the people of God. Those who understand and receive them will be kept from being swept away by the delusions of Satan."—Early Writings, 254:1-255:0, 256:2.

"Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the Sanctuary above, are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a Mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort, they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the Investigative Judgment is going forward in heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the Sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon earth. This work is more clearly presented in the Messages of Revelation Fourteen. When this work shall have been accomplished, the followers of Christ will be ready for His appearing."—Great Controversy, 425:1-2.

Now, either the Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy view of the Sanctuary is correct or Dr. Ford’s view. They both cannot be right. And which one are you going to stand by? Do not think that you may just remain neutral for awhile "and wait until the Ford problem blows over," for it isn’t going to. For over fifteen years Desmond Ford has been training men into his beliefs, and there are ministers and Bible teachers on two continents—both the Australasian and the North American Divisions—who have accepted Ford-Brinsmead beliefs and are actively teaching his ideas as their own in the pulpits and classrooms of at least two Divisions.

Let me tell you where we are, and then where we are headed.

Here is where we are now: As you may know, following the October 27, 1979 lecture by Dr. D. B. Ford, he was recalled to Washington D.C., to carry on there, under regular salary, research work on his ideas in order that he might present them in a scholarly and complete manner before a doctrinal study group in Washington D.C. next summer, that is to decide as to the correctness of his views. This will probably occur under the auspices of the Biblical Research Institute General Council, of the General Conference under the direction of Elder W.R. Lesher (6840 Eastern Avenue, NW, Washington D.C. 20012. Phone: 202-723-0800.)

Upon his arrival at the General Conference, that body voted that Dr. Ford was to he placed under a preaching ban. This means that he was asked not to speak in our churches until after the question of his orthodoxy was settled. And of course, after reading what he has been actively teaching, you can surely understand why such a restriction would he placed upon him. But soon after this, Verdict Magazine, one of the Brinsmead-Paxton publications, sent out an urgent appeal to its readers to write in to the General Conference in Washington D.C. and protest this ban on Dr. Ford. Many of their readers immediately did so, for they recognized that Desmond Ford is advocating the same liberal views that Robert Brinsmead is preaching. When the letters of protest reached our General Conference headquarters in January and February of 1980, it lifted the ban. Where were the ones who should have written in defense of our historic doctrines, requesting that Dr. Ford not he permitted to preach his views publicly? They did nothing because they knew nothing about it. Those standing by the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy in the church didn’t learn about the pressure being applied to our leaders until it was too late. And this is the way things are regularly being conducted at this time. Speaking and writing promotional campaigns by those advocating the new theology of no-Sanctuary, no-Spirit of Prophecy Inspiration, etc., are making deep inroads into our church, through sermons, letters, magazine articles, camp meeting appointments, Conference and Union-wide rallies, while the faithful in the church do little or nothing—simply because they do not realize what is gradually taking place. An important reason for this is that the brethren with the errors are determinedly organizing and working to achieve their objectives. While the faithful among God’s people are trying to carry on the regular work in the church and in the world that needs to be tended to. There must be found those today who love the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy who will work earnestly and decidedly to defend and maintain truth in our midst. For it is clear from the Verdict letter campaign, that our leaders trying so hard to carry on with the forward progress of the work, need our help. Viewing the past we can read the future. Those among us who love the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy must help and encourage our ministers and leaders who are trying so earnestly to stand by these principles. They need our support in standing for the Spirit of Prophecy at a time when many are leaving it—and we had better give them that support in every way possible. It is unfortunate that at a time when we should be aggressively giving our message to the world, we must pause to cast error out from within us. We should rather be unifying in service, than dividing in beliefs, for division brings weakness to the Cause of God. But we cannot, we dare not unite with those who are departing from the pioneer belief of our Movement. This is against Inspired Counsel. When error is permitted by a minority to come in among us as a people, what else can we do but to rise up against it? In 1904, when the Alpha of Apostasy was introduced, we were decidedly told "Meet it!" (1SM 205:3). This must be our experience today. And in view of major errors such as the entire blotting out of 1844 and our Sanctuary Message, who is that man who will dare to say that we should ignore die matter while the Ford-Brinsmead people press resolutely forward?

"With some concessions on their part, they proposed that Christians should make concessions, that all might unite on the platform of belief in Christ. Now the church was in fearful peril. Prison, torture, fire, and sword were blessings in comparison with this. Some of the Christians stood firm, declaring that they could make no compromise. Others were in favor of yielding or modifying some features of their faith, and uniting."—Great Controversy, 42:3-43:0. Read the entire chapter tonight for family worship.

"Get thee up, wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? Israel hath . . transgressed My Covenant which I commanded them. It was a time for prompt and decided action, and not for despair and lamentation. There was secret sin in the camp, and it must be searched out and put away before the presence and blessing of the Lord could be with His people."—Patriarchs and Prophets, 494.

The Spirit of Prophecy tells us that we cannot have unity on the basis of error, and indeed, as trials thicken around us both separation and unity will he seen in our ranks (6T 400-401)—and unity is vitally important as we approach the last crisis (7T 182), but God does not call for unity on wrong practices (1SM 175), nor is it to be secured by the compromise of truth and righteousness, with error and wrongdoing (GC 45, SR 324), for unity is purchased too dearly when it is obtained at the sacrifice of principle (SR 324).

So where do we stand now? Unless common folk such as you and I unite with our leaders in requiring the cessation of activity by those who are introducing Ford-Brinsmead error into our academies, colleges and local churches, then we will lose by default. If we together—laymen and leaders alike—will not stand for the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy at this time by voice and pen, then we are all ultimately losing, for the advocates of the new theology of Brinsmead and Ford are actively urging their ideas and moving forward as rapidly as they dare.

And what is ahead if you do not stand now for the faith bequeathed to your fathers through the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy? The experiment has been tried during the years 1963-1979 in Australia. The future is contained in the past. For over fifteen years, laymen and workers in the Australasian Division sat back in placid calm while Desmond Ford’s teachings of Covered Sin by Faith, Belittling of the Spirit of Prophecy, Denial of our Sanctuary Message, Cross and Second Advent Prophetic Interpretation, and so forth, began in the early ‘60's at Avondale College, went through the Conference and Union offices, and into the ministerial ranks, took over our Australian publications (the Australian Signs of the Times, and the Division constituency monthly paper), and were taught to new converts. It grew in the early ‘70's through incessant hammering at every Adventist gathering on the Australian continent,—and then, quite suddenly, it began to turn on those who still believed the old truths of Adventism. Persecution of those in the church who refused to accept the new view began in earnest in the mid ‘70’s. Speaking appointments, church work, teaching positions, ministerial credentials—all are now dependent in Australia upon conformity to Ford Theology. Colin and Russell Standish have documented the entire historical development of this error in the Australasian Division in their careful study, "The Origin and Development of the Australasian Controversy," obtainable from us.

The hour is a great one. The crisis even bigger. We are told that the church will be sifted by fiery trials (Ev 361, 6BC 1065, 2SM 368, 380), and this will include the introduction of heresies among us (ST 707). We have been told that the church will appear as about to fall, but it will not fall—instead the sinners in Zion will be sifted out. This is the predicted crisis. And it will come to the church over the Spirit of Prophecy. "Satan is constantly pressing in the spurious—to lead away from the truth. The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God."—Selected Messages, book 1, page 48. This is the predicted crisis. This is the upwelling of the Omega of Apostasy.

"Have you been doing the Master’s business in listening to fanciful and spiritualistic interpretations of the Scriptures, interpretations which undermine the foundations of our faith,— and holding your peace?. . . My message to you is: No longer consent to listen without protest to the perversion of truth. Unmask the pretentious sophistries . . . Brilliant, sparkling ideas often flash from a mind that is influenced by the great deceiver. Those who listen and acquiesce will become charmed, as Eve was charmed by the serpent’s words. They cannot listen to charming philosophical speculations, and at the same time keep the word of the living God in mind . . . I call upon those who have been connected with these binding influences to break the yoke to which they have long submitted, and stand as free men in Christ. Nothing but a determined effort will break the spell that is upon them. Be not deceived; many will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. WE HAVE NOW BEFORE US THE ALPHA OF THIS DANGER. THE OMEGA WILL BE OF A MOST STARTLING NATURE."—Selected Messages, book 1, page 196-197. It is very important that you read carefully the entire section—1SM 193-208.

God is waiting for men and women who will stand by the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy at this time of crisis. Make a good decision, just now. May God help us each one to be faithful.

—vf

"Let the truths that are the foundation of our faith be kept before the people. Some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils . . . We are now to understand what the pillars of our faith are,—the truths that have made us as a people what we are, leading us on step by step."—Review, May 25, 1905.

"The theme of greatest importance is the Third Angels Message, embracing the messages of the first and second angels. All should understand the truths contained in these messages and demonstrate them in daily life, for this is essential. We shall have to study earnestly, prayerfully, in order to understand these grand truths."—Letter 97, 1902.

"In Minneapolis God gave precious gems of truth to His people in new settings . . . but there was evidence that they knew not what the old landmarks were . . . The passing of the time in 1844 was a period of great events, opening to our astonished eyes the cleansing of the Sanctuary transpiring in Heaven, and having decided relation to God’s people upon the earth, [also] the First and Second Angel’s Messages and the Third, unfurled the banner on which was inscribed, ‘The Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus.’ One of the old landmarks under this message was the Temple of God, seen by His truth-loving people in Heaven, and the Ark containing the Law of God. The light of the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment flashed its strong rays in the pathway of the transgressors of God’s Law. The Nonimmortality of the Wicked is an old landmark."—Manuscript 13, 1889.

"When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth. No after suppositions, contrary to the light God has given are to be entertained. Men will arise with interpretations of Scripture which are to them truth, but which are not truth. The truth for this time, God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth. One will arise, and still another, with ‘new light’ which contradicts the light God has given under the demonstration of His holy Spirit "We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their assorted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God’s word, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, it is a great mistake."—Preach the Word, page 5 (1905).

"God has not passed His people by, and chosen one solitary man here and another there as the only ones worthy to be entrusted with His truth. He does not give one man new light contrary to the established faith of the body. In every reform men have arisen making this claim."— Testimonies, volume 5, page 291.

"We are to pray for divine enlightenment, but at the same time we should be careful how we receive everything termed light. We must beware lest, under cover of searching for new truth, Satan shall divert our minds from Christ and the special truths for this time. I have been shown that it is the device of the enemy to lead minds to dwell upon some obscure or unimportant point, something that is not fully revealed or is not essential to our salvation. This is made the absorbing theme, the ‘present truth,’ when all their investigations and suppositions only serve to make matters more obscure than before, and to confuse the minds of some who ought to be seeking for oneness through sanctification of the truth."—Preach the Word, page 4 (1891).

"Satan hopes to involve the remnant people of God in the general ruin that is coming upon the earth. As the coming of Christ draws nigh, he will be more determined and decisive in his efforts to overthrow them. Men and women will arise professing to have some new light or some new revelation, whose tendency is to unsettle faith in the old landmarks. Their doctrines will not bear the test of God’s Word, yet some will be deceived. This spirit will not always be manifested in an open defiance of the messages that God sends, but a settled unbelief expressed in many ways. Every false statement that is made feeds and strengthens this unbelief, and through this means many souls will be balanced in the wrong direction."—Testimonies, volume 5, pages 295-296.

"Messages of every order and kind have been urged upon Seventh-day Adventists, to take the place of the truth which, point by point, has been sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle-working power of the Lord. But the waymarks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His Word and the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable authority."—Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, page 59.

"As a people we are to stand firm upon the platform of eternal truth that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith. The principles of truth that God has revealed to us are our only true foundation. They have made us what we are. The lapse of time has not lessened their value."—Special Testimonies, Series B, page 51.

"No line of truth that has made the Seventh-day Adventist people what they are, is to be weakened. We have the old landmarks of truth, experience, and duty, and we are to stand firmly in defense of our principles, in full view of the world."— Testimonies, volume 6, page 17.

"I saw a company who stood well guarded and firm, giving no countenance to those who would unsettle the established faith of the body. God looked upon them with approbation [favor]. I was shown three steps,—the First, Second, and Third Angels Messages. Said my accompanying angel, ‘Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance. The destiny of souls hangs upon the manner in which they are received.’ I was again brought down through these messages and saw how dearly the people of God had purchased their experience. It had been obtained through much suffering and severe conflict. God had led them along step by step, until He had placed them upon a solid, immovable platform."—Early Writings, pages 258-259.

"In the future, deception of every kind is to arise, and we want solid ground for our feet. We want solid pillars for the building. Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no Sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith. Where shall we find safety unless it be in the truths that the Lord has been giving for the last fifty years?"— Review, May 25, 1905.

"Satan is striving continually to bring in fanciful suppositions in regard to the Sanctuary, degrading the wonderful representations of God and the ministry of Christ for our salvation into something that suits the carnal heart. He removes its presiding power from the hearts of believers, and supplies its place with fantastic theories invented to make void the truths of the Atonement, and destroy our confidence in the doctrines which we have held sacred since the Third Angel’s Message was first given. Thus he would rob us of our faith in the very message that has made us a separate people, and has given character and power to our work."— Special Testimonies, Series B, number 7, page 17 (1905).

"I know that the Sanctuary question stands in righteousness and truth, just as we have held it for so many years. It is the enemy that leads minds off on sidetracks. He is pleased when those who know the truth become engrossed in collecting scriptures to pile around erroneous theories, which have no foundation in truth. The scriptures thus used are misapplied; they were not given to substantiate error, but to strengthen truth."— Gospel Workers, page 303.

"The correct understanding of the ministration in the Heavenly Sanctuary is the foundation of our faith." —Letter 208, 1906.

"The subject of the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise, it will be impossible or them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time, or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill. Every individual has a soul to save or to lose. Each has a case pending at the bar of God. Each must meet the great Judge face to face. How important, then, that every mind contemplate often the solemn scene when the judgment shall sit and the books shall be opened."—Great Controversy, page 488.

"We should not rest until we become intelligent in regard to the subject of the Sanctuary, which is brought out in the visions of Daniel and John. This subject sheds great light on our present position and work, and gives us unmistakable proof that God has led us in our past experience."— Review, November 27, 1883.

"The Sanctuary in Heaven is the very center of Christ’s work in behalf of men. It concerns every soul living upon the earth. It opens to view the plan of redemption, bringing us down to the very close of time, and revealing the triumphant issue of the contest between righteousness and sin. It is of the utmost importance that all should thoroughly investigate these subjects, and be able to give an answer to every one that asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them."—Great Controversy, page 488-489.

"The subject of the Sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the Disappointment in 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious, showing that God’s hand had directed the Great Advent Movement, and revealing present duty as it brought to light the position and work of His people."—Great Controversy, page 423.

"Our faith in reference to the messages of the First, Second, and Third Angels was correct. The great waymarks we have passed are immovable. Although the hosts of hell may try to tear them from their foundation, and triumph in the thought that they have succeeded, yet they do not succeed. These pillars of truth stand firm as the eternal hills, unmoved by all the efforts of men combined with those of Satan and his hosts . . . God’s people are now to have their eyes fixed on the Heavenly Sanctuary, where the final ministration of our great High Priest in the work of Judgment is going forward,—where He is interceding for His people."—Review, November 27, 1883.

"While Christ is cleansing the Sanctuary, the worshipers on earth should carefully review their life, and compare their character with the standard of righteousness."—Review, April 8, 1890.

"For more than half a century the different points of present truth have been questioned and opposed. New theories have been advanced as truth, which were not truth, and the Spirit of God revealed their error. As the great pillars of our faith have been presented, the Holy Spirit has borne witness to them, and especially is this so regarding the truths of the Sanctuary question. Over and over again the holy Spirit has in a marked manner endorsed the preaching of this doctrine. But today, as in the past, some will be led to form new theories and to deny the truths upon which the Spirit of God has placed His approval."—Manuscript 125, 1907.

"In the future, deception of every kind is to arise, and we want solid ground for our feet. We want solid pillars for the building. Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no Sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith. Where shall we find safety unless it be in the truths that the Lord has been giving for the past fifty years?"—Review, May 25. 1905.

"We are in the time when tribulations such as the world has never yet seen will prevail . . . But God has set bounds that Satan cannot pass. Our most holy faith is this barrier; and if we build ourselves up in the faith, we shall be safe in the keeping of the Mighty One. Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."—Testimonies, volume 5, page 297.

"The time is near when deceptive powers of satanic agencies will be fully developed. On one side is Christ, who has been given all power in heaven and earth. On the other side is Satan, continually exercising his power to allure, to deceive with strong, spiritualistic sophistries, to remove God out of the place that He should occupy in the minds of men. "Satan is striving continually to bring in fanciful suppositions in regard to the Sanctuary, degrading the wonderful representations of God and the ministry of Christ for our salvation into something that suits the carnal mind, He removes its presiding power from the hearts of believers, and supplies its place with fantastic theories invented to make void the truths of the Atonement, and destroy our confidence in the doctrines which we have held sacred since the Third Angel’s Message was first given. Thus he would rob us of our faith in the very message that has made us a separate people, and has given character and power to our work."—Special Testimonies, Series 8, Number 7, page 17 (1905).

"I was saved on Calvary — and there is nothing more that I have to do!"

In February of 1976, representatives from leadership, pastoral work, and laity within the Australasian Division met together under the aegis of the Division Biblical Research Committee, to discuss the teachings of Dr. Desmond Ford. At this meeting one of the Australian Conference Presidents explained to the Committee the atmosphere that within the past few years had developed at Avondale College. He said that the decrying of Christian living—"experience" and walking with Christ—"works" by faculty and theological students at the college had reached such a point that young people were frightened to get down on their knees and pray to God for power to overcome sin—because they will be called legalists.

One of the church leaders of the liberal "new theology" movement in the Victoria Conference, spoke recently to a group of young Adventist Academy students and said, "If you help an old lady across the road and you feel good about it—that is sin! To feel good about your good deeds is sin!" Those who love the Lord well know that a Christian joy is the natural result of doing good to others. But we are here told that such happiness is sin. One who heard of this, commented, "I wonder how many young people would help a little old lady across the road after that, and risk displeasing God. It seems as if everything is being turned upside down!"

Dr. John Clifford and Dr. Russell Standish tell of an incident in which a young lady at Avondale said to one of them, "I was born again this week!" It is well to help newly born Christians on the upward path, and so he asked her concerning her daily prayer life, and walk with Jesus. To this she replied that Christian experience has got nothing to do with it. "I have been saved. I was saved on Calvary and there is nothing more that I have to do!"

Brethren who have lived with this problem for over a decade in Australia, and have seen its effects in the lives of others, tell us that the fruit of this new liberal doctrine within our church tends to emphasize "faith" to the utter neglect of repentance, or of daily earnest prayer for the help of God to meet the problems of daily life. It tends to destroy a keen sense of the awfulness of sin in God’s sight. It creates within its adherents a tendency to make allowance for "a little sin" within their lives, and quietly, relentlessly, it lulls backsliders to a yet deeper sleep—for it gives them a false sense of security in their "ultimate salvation." The Desmond Ford theory of salvation is, something of an "inevitable salvation." And as it is received, it brings with it an exhilarating sense,—that is in reality a sense of freedom from the responsibility of consequences of not obeying God. It is a known fact that backsliders adapt very easily to this new view of Christian living. It requires no particular adjustment to their lives other than initial acceptance of the teaching.

This new theology tends to produce a natural disinclination—and even opposition—to prayerful efforts to deepen one’s level of Obedience by Faith. This liberal way of thinking has been found to decrease the likelihood of a victorious Christian life, rather than to increase it. Since the teaching is that the inherited tendency to evil and depravity must remain with one till death, the Christian adopting it can clearly see that all hopes and efforts in Christ for complete deliverance are but idle, if not even fanatical goals. Those who adopt the viewpoint of the New Theology soon drop to this hopeless outlook toward their sins. It appears useless to try to overcome that which is unconquerable.

FF - 15

Unless they can do away with this book or shake our confidence in it, they know that they can never succeed in enlisting the support of the Advent Movement in their false theories in regard to the Sanctuary Message, 1844, the Investigative Judgment, the Third Angel’s Message and Obedience by Faith to the Law of God, the Sabbath and our other distinctive beliefs.

This is due to the fact that Great Controversy alone, of any book that we publish, provides a totally accurate and comprehensive view of what we believe in regard to these important truths.

Because of this towering fact, it is the studied purpose of Robert Brinsmead, Desmond Ford, and Geoffery Paxton to down-grade the messages of this book in our minds. But because they can present no solid reason for our setting aside the messages of this book, they offer us a variety of errors,—each of which is mutually contradictory,—in order to accomplish this purpose. Consider the following:

(1) Their primary method is to teach what they want to teach, call it "Biblical" and "Reformation" truth to make it sound worthwhile, and then to ignore the Spirit of Prophecy. (2) Cite a statement or two from here and there in the Spirit of Prophecy that is really irrelevant, and then tell us that it means in such-and-such a Ford-Brinsmead error, and then imply that this was her true belief in the matter and that in her dozens of statements elsewhere, we have what she only "apparently" wrote, because someone else changed them. (2) Or they will tell us that Great Controversy teaches only the beliefs given "at the birth of our movement." With the thought in mind that Desmond, down at the end of our movement as a result of his extensive studies, has the distilled purity of divine knowledge for us. (3) Or completely switch, and tell us that the "Alpha of Apostasy was the 1888 Message, and that since Great Controversy was written after it, this book is part of that apostasy, it is in error. (4) Or tell us that Ellen White isn’t really inspired anyway, and that whatever she wrote is immediately to be discarded from serious doctrinal study,—for all she gave us was "pastoral" or "homiletic" material—pretty, uninspired sermons, and nothing more.

The truth is that Great Controversy is Inspired of God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in right living in our time in history. Its basic concepts go all the way back into Early Writings and her first visions, and go all the way forward down to the end of her life. The full truth of the Sanctuary, 1844, the Investigative Judgment, Obedience to the Law of God as the final issue and crisis at the end of time, can be fully seen in the 1884 edition of Great Controversy, some time before 1888, and it is fully shown in the 1911 Revision of that book, made under her direct approval, four years before her death. Great Controversy represents the Inspired First Message of our people, the Inspired Middle Message of our people and the Inspired Final Message of our people. In this book is the clearest statement that we have, of the Third Angel’s Message—the last message to a dying world. Read and understand and value and share this special book with your loved ones, those in your local church, and with everyone you meet.

There is a Two-Apartment Sanctuary in Heaven

An underlying teaching of Dr. Ford, one which he brings into his messages frequently, is the belief that there is no two-apartment Sanctuary in Heaven. Desmond Ford regularly teaches his students that Jesus at His Ascension went directly to the throne of God (which we also believe), but that He entered no building for this purpose,—for Ford does not believe that any structure of any type or size in Heaven exists, which is known as the Sanctuary. He considers it to be a figment of our imagination,—something supported nowhere in Scripture.

Probably the best Bible study on this topic is to be found in Chapter 23 of the book, Great Controversy. Paul tells us in the book of Hebrews that the Old Testament Sanctuary had two apartments, and he carefully describes them and the work done within them (Heb 9:1-5). He is here referring to the Sanctuary that was commanded and built at the direction of God, under the leadership of Moses (Ex 25:8). The specifications for it were given in Exodus 25-27, it was constructed in Exodus 36-38, and it was put together in Exodus 40. "Thus did Moses, according to all that the Lord commanded him, so did he." Exodus 40:16. Again, examining the book of Hebrews, we find "also" in Hebrews 9:1, indicating that Paul had earlier mentioned a second Sanctuary. At the beginning of the previous chapter we find it described as the Sanctuary in which Jesus ministers, and that it is in Heaven (Heb 8:1-2). Studying more deeply into this matter, we find that the Earthly Sanctuary was designed after the "pattern" of another one. This is clearly shown in Exodus 25:9, 40. And Paul tells us that it was "a figure, for the time then present" (Heb 9:9), and that its holy places were "patterns of things in the heavens" (9:23), and that its priests served within it "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things" (8:5). The Sanctuary in Heaven is thus the Great Original, of which the Sanctuary built by Moses was a copy. This abiding place of the King of Kings, where "thousand thousands minister unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stand before Him" was prophetically seen by Daniel in a vision of the last days (Dan 7:10). John the Revelator in vision saw "a door opened in Heaven." He was called to enter it (Rev 4:1), and within he was granted a view of the Temple of God in Heaven, there to behold "Seven Lamps of fire burning before the Throne" (Rev 4:5). According to this view, the Throne was in the First Apartment. for John saw the Seven-branched Lampstand beside it. And He saw One come and stand before the Altar—the Altar of Incense—having a golden censer in His hand, "and there was given unto Him much incense, that He should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the Golden Altar (the Altar of Incense within the First Apartment) which was before the Throne." Revelation 8:3.

John the Revelator thus beheld the Coming of Christ to the Golden Altar to begin the Daily Mediation with the First Apartment of the Sanctuary in Heaven (Rev 8:3-4),just as Daniel the Prophet beheld the coming of Christ to the Second Apartment of that Temple to begin the Final Mediatorial work of the Investigative Judgment (Dan 7:9-10, 13-14, 22, 26-27). the same work that Malachi saw in Malachi 3:1-3. Thus, in Revelation 8:3, John looked within the First of the two Apartments of the Heavenly Sanctuary and viewed the Mediatorial Work of Christ on behalf of His people. "And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the Angel’s hand." Revelation 8:4. Then, in his view of the last days, John beholds another entering into the Sanctuary. "The Temple of God was opened" and he looked within the inner veil. upon the Holy of Holies, and beheld the Ark of the Testament (the Ark of the Covenant—for the Ark contained the Testament or Covenant, which was the Law of God), and attention was at that time to be directed to that Holy Moral Standard by which mankind are to be governed (Rev 11:19). Moses made the Earthly Sanctuary after a pattern which was shown him. Paul teaches that that pattern was the true Sanctuary which is in Heaven. And John testifies that he saw it in Heaven. Great Controversy, 415:1. Most of the above study is to be found in Great Controversy, 411:1-415:0. And it should be compared with chapter 24.