desmond ford - section ii ford’s critique of weber

8/14/2019 Desmond Ford - Section II Fords critique of Weber

1/7

FORD AND WEBER DIALOGUE

Section II: Fords critique of Weber

Three arguments have been offered against the gospel I teach and cherish. First is the

argument ad hominem--an argument relative to the person rather than the issues. This argumentwas invoked against Christ when it was said that "He divideth the people" (John 7:43) and

against Paul, who was labeled "a pestilent fellow and a mover of sedition" (Acts 24:5). The

same argument was used against Martin Luther because of the excesses of the Peasants' Revolt,which was contemporaneous with the beginnings of Luther's reformation. This argument is very

convincing for those who prefer classification to close thought. It is the argument of prejudice,

which word means nothing more than a prejudging of the facts without becoming fullyacquainted with them.

Martin's language is very strong. He claims that "Without question, the most hated andfeared man in recent Adventist history is Desmond Ford." This is certainly not true in Europe(where 1844 is rarely alluded to or taught), the South Pacific, or anywhere on this continent I am

personally known. It has been a matter of great joy to me that I did not lose one known friend

over the Glacier View debacle. I include in my reckoning, division and conference presidents,college professors, book editors and magazine editors, pastors, and laity.

Do Adventists indeed hate other people? Have they never understood Paul's 13th chapterof 1 Corinthians? If not, how can they be expected to understand what he has written in

Romans? Certainly, those who hate know not the gospel in which I rejoice.

Let us move to the second argument. It is contended that righteousness by faith in theNew Testament does not mean justification only. This matter is easily settled for those who

know Greek, for the same word is translated as either justification or righteousness; but it is also

easily settled by those who know only English, if they will consider every context whererighteousness and faith are linked by Paul.

I was on the committee appointed by the Adventist church to study this very issue atPalmdale in 1976, when scholars assembled from Andrews University and elsewhere, plus an

Australian contingent. That committee agreed that contrary to traditional Adventist teaching,

"When the words righteousness and faith are connected (by 'of,' 'by,' etc.) in Scripture, referenceis to the experience of justification by faith. Review and Herald, May 27, 1976, p. 4. I

recommend to those unfamiliar with the original biblical languages to closely study Romans

1:17; 3:26; 8:10; 10:4; Galatians 2:21; 2 Corinthians 3:9, and observe how some translations in

certain of these texts use the word justification, whereas others in the same text use the wordrighteousness. See, for example, the New English Bible on Romans 8:10 and 2 Corinthians 3:9.

("Acquitted is a synonym for justified," as all acknowledge.)

The third argument is that Acts 26:19 proves that sanctification is by faith alone. Again,

knowledge of the original languages is helpful at this point but not indispensable. Sanctification


2/7

Ford critiques Weber Sec. II

in the New Testament often means not growth in grace, but acceptance of grace. The

Seventh - day Adventist Bible Dictionary on page 995, discussing sanctification says:

As a modern theological term, sanctification denotes a process of character development,

or the result of this process. However, as used in the New Testament, 'sanctification' and

'justification' are essentially equivalent terms, . . . . Thus, sanctification is presented as apast act (see 1 Corinthians 6:11, where 'are sanctified' is literally 'were sanctified').

The Greek root is the New Testament equivalent to the Hebrew term that denotesseparation. Mount Sinai was sanctified, the Sabbath was sanctified, etc. Thus, in the New

Testament where the King James Version uses the word sanctified, some other translations often

use consecrated or dedicated (see 1 Corinthians 1:30; John 17:19).

The New Testament does not teach sanctification by faith alone. We are not zombies

after conversion, wherein God does everything and we do nothing. The Holy Spirit now works

in us "to will and to do" His good pleasure. The New Testament uses about 20 verbs of effort in

connection with the process of character development. We are to strive, multiply, run, crucify,fight, flee, etc. No one reading closely the New Testament or the writings of Ellen White would

find grounds for believing that either source teaches sanctification by faith alone. In theChristian life, it is true that "Without Him, we cannot. And without us, He will not." We are to

work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, yet remembering that not a leaf in the

garden of the soul can stir unless the Holy Spirit breathes upon it. While righteousness by faith

implies the imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness to our account, the righteousnessdeveloped in character formation at any stage is never perfect and, therefore, should never be

included under this Pauline rubric. The righteousness of justification is perfect, but is not

inherent. The righteousness of sanctification is inherent, but is not perfect. The righteousness ofglorification will be both perfect and inherent.

Only Christ fulfilled the law perfectly. We, ourselves, are struggling and falling, fallingand rising again, failing in speech and action to represent Christ, despairing and hoping. Thus

wrote Ellen White towards the end of her ministry, paraphrasing Romans 7:14-25. (See

Testimonies vol. 9, p. 222.) Christ, in fulfilling the law, revealed an infinitely perfect character,an excellence which has never been found, and neither could be, in any other. (Testimonies vol.

6, p. 60; SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 904). "We cannot equal the pattern. . . ."

(Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 549).

Ellen White never claimed infallibility, and Dr. L. E. Froom cited approximately one

hundred quotations from her pen in his last book The Movement of Destiny, saying that the

Bible and the Bible only should be used for doctrine. But she often marvelously summarizedgospel truths. For example, in Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560-561, she wrote, "So long as Satan

reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there

will be no stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained. . . . Therewill be a continued reaching out of the soul after God, a continual, earnest, heartbreaking

confession of sin and humbling of the heart before Him. At every advance step in our Christian

experience, our repentance will deepen." Further, "The religious services, the prayers, the praise,

the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers, as incense to the heavenly sanctuary,

2


3/7


but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled, that unless purified by

the blood, they can never be of value to God. They ascend not in spotless purity, and unless the

intercessor, who is at God's right hand, presents and purifies all by His righteousness, it is notacceptable to God." (Selected Messages, book 1, p. 344).

Because, as John tells us, we lie if we affirm that we have no sin; and because, as Jamestells us, "In many things, we all offend;" and because, as Jesus tells us, we should pray for

forgiveness whenever we pray, and even after what we consider to be perfect obedience, confess

that we are unprofitable servants - in view of these things, we are ever dependent on that perfectinfinite righteousness imputed to us as a free gift as we lay hold of our sacrifice and

representative by faith alone. This the New Testament gospel, and holy living is always its fruit

(see Great Controversy, p. 256).

We have touched upon the only three objections that Martin Weber has to my statement

on the gospel. With his usual courtesy and honesty, he has then proceeded to affirm positively

many of the items that I teach and preach. After that, he moves into an area which is not really

found in my statement on salvation, nor was it asked for--the matter of the InvestigativeJudgment. However, if Elder Weber wishes to move from the gospel to this area of eschatology,

I am glad to move with him.

The first thing to be said is that nowhere in my writings or in my preaching have I denied

the fact of a last judgment for believers. Martin seems to think that I do. As my allusion to the

topic in the statement on salvation says, I believe that the last judgment for believers has noterrors, inasmuch as Christ is the believers' substitute there as well. I do not use John 5:24 to

deny the prospect of a coming judgment for those in Christ, but I do use it to deny that the

judgment constitutes any threat and that it should in any way unsettle the assurance of the onefully dedicated to his Lord and Savior. Justification by definition is the bestowal of the favorable

verdict of the Last Judgment at the moment of faith, and it is a permanent possession despite

failures and mistakes, provided one maintains true faith in Him who is our Savior and Lord. TheLast Day does not originate the verdict, it only proclaims it to the universe. (See John 3:18,36;

5:24; 10:27-29; 12:31; Romans 3:28; 5:1-2; 8:1, 33-39; I John 3:1,2; 4:17; 5:11-12.)

Repeatedly, Elder Weber quotes Revelation 14:7 about the hour of judgment, but he

misapplies it to believers. The same words occur in Revelation 18:10, and it is clear that the

judgment applies there only to Babylon. It is the same in Revelation 14 also. See Verse 8. In all

the apocalyptic literature, including Daniel, the threat of judgment especially applies to thosewho are persecuting the saints. Thus, in Daniel 7 it is clearly said that the judgment is upon the

little horn, and thereby the saints are vindicated. See Daniel 7, 10-11, 25-26. Be very careful to

observe that the last verse clearly says that when the judgment sits, the dominion of the littlehorn (Antichrist) is consumed and destroyed. This is no Investigative Judgment for the saints.

Neither is it in Revelation 14:7, as Verses 8 and 18:10 testify.

I acknowledge the truthfulness of Elder Weber's statement: "Some of the most

depressing, faith-destroying fallacies in the history of Christianity have infiltrated the Adventist

Church through misunderstanding the sanctuary and the judgment." Likewise, his admission that

the pioneers "were deficient in their understanding of salvation." Again, when he says that "No

3


4/7


Adventist today believes what the earliest pioneers did about the sanctuary," his statement is

more true than his following lines suggest. The early Adventists believed that the judgment

began in 1844 and would be brief - less than one generation in length, according to Uriah Smith.Now, today one can either believe it began in 1844, for which there is no biblical warrant

whatsoever, or one can believe the judgment is brief (as I do), but one cannot believe both.

When Brother Weber proceeds to say that "Nobody's Adventism is so historic that they

believe what our pioneers all did in the late 1840s and early 1850s," he is undeniably correct.

The doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, for instance, was not accepted as a church doctrineuntil about 1857. (See Maxwell's book Tell It to the World for evidence on this topic.) In the

following paragraph we have the statement that "Jesus began a new dimension of His work in

heaven in 1844." And it is further declared that "This is the unique and indispensable pillar of

Adventist doctrine." May I comment on these claims?

First, let it be said that no important doctrine rests on a single verse (Matthew 4:7; 18:16;

2 Corinthians 13:1), so that wipes out 1844 immediately. Furthermore, most scholars today, and

many translations, indicate that it is not days that are pictured in Daniel 8:14, but evening andmorning burnt offerings, which would cover approximately three and a half years. Thus, Today's

English Version (Good News Bible) translates the verse "for 1,150 days. . . ." The whole contextis about the taking away of the regular offerings by Antichrist.

This "unique and indispensable pillar" is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament, and

if we are holding to the faith of Jesus, we should demand that it be found there. It is certainly notfound in the book of Hebrews, as F. D. Nichol and other scholars have pointed out. (See my

Glacier View manuscript, Chapter One.) This "unique and indispensable pillar" was based on

very faulty exegesis. In trying to defend 1844 after the failure of Christ's return, Adventistsconnected it with Leviticus 16 by untenable methods. By using the King James Version, rather

than the original Hebrew, they fixed upon 2,300 days and the word "cleansed," but the original

Hebrew does not say either. The word for day is not in the text and neither is the word cleanse inthe Hebrew text. Consult modern versions. The majority of them make very plain the truth on

this matter. Secondly, the early Adventists did not notice that in the context it was the little horn

who had defiled the sanctuary and trodden it underfoot, not the saints by their sins. So, theindispensable pillar has no New Testament statement, and neither has it any Old Testament

statement either. No wonder Adventist scholars in general have refused to write books and

scholarly articles in defense of the doctrine in recent decades, with very few exceptions. Indeed,

when Elder F. D. Nichol and Raymond Cottrell sent out a questionnaire to our leading Biblescholars in the 1950s, all 27 conceded that there was no way of proving from Daniel 8:14 a

doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. (See my Appendix 19 in the Glacier View manuscript.)

I agree wholeheartedly with Brother Weber that the judgment is no threat to the saints,

and I deeply appreciate his excellent points on the ancient Hebrew meaning of judgment. His

points are helpful, as we consider the fact that in the last great day it will be considered whetherwe have maintained to the end our faith in Christ, but they are quite irrelevant in establishing an

Investigative Judgment. Nowhere in the New Testament is it ever suggested that the judgment is

something that will take over a century and a half. On the contrary, from Revelation 22:11-12, it

is easy to see that the Final Judgment is just a matter of declaration as to where everybody

4


5/7


stands, a declaration made immediately before Christ's appearance in the clouds of heaven.

Martin Weber finds fault with my understanding of the word atonement. Contrary towhat he suggests, I do not see the word as signifying only Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. What I

do see is that the chief New Testament use of the concept is thus applied. Brother Weber draws

illustrations from the Old Testament in support of his thesis on the atonement and the sanctuaryministry, but he thereby sets the Bible on its head, making the Old Testament primary and the

New Testament secondary, which is just the opposite of what the book of Hebrews does. As

practically every scholarly commentary on the book of Hebrews is quick to point out, forexample, Adventist scholar Dr. Norman H. Young has written:

It is rather clear, therefore, that our author is laboring to modify the type to fit Christian

beliefs about Christ's death: In the old cult, the High Priest comes out from the holiest tothe altar before the Lord in order to complete the blood aspersions, now the High Priest

of the good things that have come enters the holiest, having once-for-all performed the

act of cleansing. We must emphasize again that to interpret the work of Christ woodenly

from the Day of Atonement imagery, is to reverse the method of Hebrews. (UnpublishedPh.D. thesis "The Impact of the Jewish Day of Atonement on the Thought of the New

Testament," Manchester 1973, p. 218.)

Dr. Young also writes:

In all our writer's references to sprinkling is an oblique allusion to the Day of AtonementBlood Aspersion, only oblique because, as we have repeated ad nauseam, he is anxious to

define the cross as the final and once-for-all cultic act with blood. If there is any

post-Calvary application of the blood, it is in the act of Christ's intercession in thecleansing of Christian worshipers; but these are results of the cross, not continuations of

it or subsequent cultic acts, they have nothing to do with the blood application of the

heavenly holiest, not even metaphorically. This, then, is why he chooses to speak of theinauguration of the tent, rather than directly of the Day of Atonement cleansing. The

mention of that tent in Verse 21 prepares the way for Verse 23 forward and the fulfillmentof the Day of Atonement in aspersion by the death of Christ. (Emphasis supplied.) (Ibid,p. 225.)

It is also pertinent to mention that Dr. Young has pointed out what Dr. Cottrell and many

other Adventist scholars have demonstrated - that a comparison of Hebrews 9:7 with 9:25 and13:11 and 9:11-12 makes it clear that the High Priest, in anti-type as in the type, went directly

into the most holy place after the shedding of blood. In other words, these verses make it quite

clear that Hebrews teaches no two phases of ministry but only the one phase in the holy of holiesthrough the atonement made on the cross. Again, I quote Dr. Young:

The parallel nature of these verses makes it clear that the equivalent to 'into the second' in9:7 is 'into the holiest' in 9:25, 13:11, 9:11-12. There's no way of avoiding this, for 9:7 is

quite specific; into the second cannot mean the sanctuary in general, nor the outer

apartment; it means what it says: 'the second 'tent',' i.e. the holy of holies (9:3,7). See

New Testament Studies, October 1973, 20:100-104. (This article says what all

5


6/7


Seventh-day Adventist scholars familiar with Greek know - that Hebrews 9 applies to the

Day of Atonement to the cross, not to 1844. Who was sacrificed in 1844?)

Learned commentaries on Hebrews point out the error of Elder Weber's statement that

"cows were sacrificed with goats for atonement on inauguration, not on Yom Kippur." Leviticus

16 makes it clear the priest offered a young bullock on the same day of atonement as he offeredthe goat for the sin offering. The Greek word for cows is used in the Septuagint for young

bullocks, and is found in Leviticus 16, and the plural is just a generalizing form applying to the

use year after year.

Brother Weber says, "I wish Desmond Ford didn't deny his next phase of atonement in

the heavenly sanctuary." I wish Elder Weber wouldn't assert it. Nowhere does the New

Testament assert it. There is just nothing in Hebrews or any part of the New Testament thatspeaks of two phases of ministry in the heavenlies. Certainly, our Lord's high priestly ministry is

referred to, the ministry on which He entered in the holy of holies immediately at His ascension.

See Hebrews 6:19-20; Hebrews 10:19-20; Hebrews 9:7-8, 12,25. I'm grateful for the fact that

the most recent book on the sanctuary theme, the one by Dr. Roy Adams, warns us againstteaching that Christ only went into the most holy apartment in 1844. At Glacier View, for the

first time in Adventist history, it was admitted that such is not the case, and now the new view isstandard, though it contradicts the typical Adventist stress on Christ's ministering in two

apartments. Practically every book or article on the sanctuary and the judgment written after

Glacier View has made concessions unknown to lay Adventists before 1980.

We would draw special attention to the third paragraph in Elder Weber's statement, under

the heading "Cleansing Heaven's Temple." Here it is:

First, notice that 'the heavenly things' of the sanctuary would be cleansed. This is not

what happened on the cross, but what would happen in the heavenly temple during

Christ's priesthood. And the cleansing of the earthly is said to be a copy of the way theheavenly would be cleansed. This explicitly requires a parallel between the two

sanctuaries regarding their cleansing.

I am so glad that Elder Weber has made this plain statement. I recommended to him

years ago that if he would only give thorough study to Hebrews 9:23, he could save himself

writing the book on the Investigative Judgment. The following verses make very clear what is

meant by the cleansing of the heavenly things. Most translations give a connecting word in theverse that follows. Usually, it is the word "for" or "because." Explaining the meaning of the

cleansing, Paul talks about Christ's entrance into heaven in connection with His sacrificial

offering of Himself at Calvary. This agrees with the third verse of the opening chapter of thissame book, which affirms that Christ cleansed our sins and then sat down on the right hand of the

Majesty on high. It is the same Greek root that is used for "purged" in Hebrews 1:3 and

"cleansed" in Hebrews 9:23. Certain Adventist scholars have long tried to make this fact clear tothe church, that Hebrews 9:23 must be explained by Hebrews 1:3, and that both are a reference

to the cleansing or atonement accomplished by the blood of Christ shed on Calvary prior to His

entrance into the Holy of Holies at the right hand of God. The New Testament knows no such

ceremony of judgment work hundreds of years after the cross and over a century and a half

6


7/7


before the end of time. All can read for themselves that Hebrews 9:23 has nothing to do with an

event over eighteen centuries in the future. Hebrews knows nothing about an Investigative

Judgment.

So, when Elder Weber inquires, "Why must he reject the two-phased ministry of Christ

and the 1844 judgment?" my answer is "Because it is nowhere taught in the New Testament or,indeed, in the Old Testament." The Greek term translated atonement in the authorized version of

Romans 5:11 is not used in the New Testament as Elder Weber suggests. The Greek word

translated atonement in Romans 5:11 means reconciliation and is applied in Verse 10 for thedeath of Christ, which reconciled us to God. (See also 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.)

The heart of the New Testament is the cross of Christ. The everlasting good news springs

from that reconciliation between God and the human race on the basis of the finished atonementmade at Calvary by our substitute and representative. Everything before the Gospels points

forward to that event, and everything discussed after the Gospels points back to that event. To

take the cross from the Christian, as Ellen White says, would be like blotting the sun from the

sky. To permit a calendrical date like 1844, or a theological theory never heard of before the1850s, to share the glory of Calvary is blasphemy. To try and prove such perversion by inference

is unacceptable to New Testament Christians. Cardinal truths stand out immediately. When onceit is seen that we all paid the price of our sins, past, present, and future, in our representative at

the cross (2 Corinthians 5:14, 21; John 1:29; Romans 5:10, 18-19) and that the only barrier to

salvation is our unbelief (Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 22:17)--then, there is joy, overwhelming joy,

at those glad tidings "which make the heart to sing, and the feet to dance."

7

desmond ford - section ii ford’s critique of weber

Documents