Desmond Ford article Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 8 » Desmond Ford article « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 3129
Registered: 10-2004

Posted on Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 1:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I want to preface this post by acknowledging that I understand that many former Adventists have great respect for Dr. Desmond Ford and that what I am about to say may be uncomfortable for some. But I feel that the truth must be spoken. I was saddened recently to find out even more so how much Desmond Ford still believes and promotes Adventism and its heretical teachings. As many are aware, Dr. Ford has refused to reject Adventism's false prophet, Ellen G. White, and the demonic spirit associated with her (see 1 John 4:1-6).

The article I came across recently was at the website of Spectrum magazine (an independent SDA journal), written by Dr. Desmond Ford, entitled "Atonement at the Cross," and was a commentary on the official SDA quarterly lesson for November 29-December 5, 2008 (4th quarter, Lesson 10). The fourth quarter 2008 lessons were written by Angel Manuel Rodriguez, director of the GC's Biblical Research Institute.

I found just about every paragraph of Dr. Ford's article to be quite disturbing. He starts out with the following comments:


"Lesson 10 of the Bible Study Guide, 'Atonement at the Cross,' has been splendidly done. I confess that perhaps too often I have viewed the Bible Study Guide with regret, but on this occasion I gratefully hail its value.

Most readers around the world will not know that what this lesson is teaching is quite contrary to what has been taught for generations at one of our educational centers. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of our physicians have been given 'another gospel, which is not another' (Gal. 1:6–9).

Those church leaders responsible for this calamitous deviation I do not expect to see in the Kingdom of God. They will be too near the throne. Theological error does not cancel us from the heart of God or none of us could be the recipient of the divine love. What God looks for is a wholehearted love toward himself and our fellow men and I know that the teachers to whom I refer ever and always manifested this love."


In the above comments, Ford is addressing the heresy of the Moral Influence Theory (MIT) of the atonement (which is taught directly by some in Adventism, especially at Loma Linda). But notice his very disturbing comments that the teachers of the MIT, which he acknowledges is "another gospel," are still Christians and will be "too near the throne" for him to see!

What is even more perplexing is that he even references Galatians 1:6-9 which explitly says that those who teach "another gospel" are "eternally condemned." They are not Christians, they are not saved, they will not be in heaven.

But what is even more disturbing is his own view of the gospel, as written in that last sentence. He makes it sound like we are saved by having "wholehearted love toward" God and men--that this is enough to gain entrance to heaven, and that theology--even whether one believes in the true Gospel or not--does not matter. This itself is a false gospel and also seems to be nothing but a thinly-veiled salvation by works.

He goes on to say:


"This lesson teaches clearly that Christ’s death was an atoning sacrifice, and that he suffered from the infliction of the wrath of God against sin. So says Ephesians 5:2; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13 and many verses in Hebrews chapters nine and ten. The lesson happily does not make the common mistake of separating the Father from the Son but repeatedly and accurately sets forth the Father as also enduring the agony of Calvary."

I don't know how he can be reading the same lesson and come away with such a conclusion, as this particular lesson has some of the worst instances of such teaching that I have ever seen anywhere. But as we'll see later, Ford obviously has a different meaning in mind when speaking of "separating the Father from the Son," as he endorses the lesson's teaching of this.

He goes on to write:


"Neither does the lesson make the error common to proponents of the Moral Influence Theory of the atonement that the law is an entity separate from God. How important it is to understand the law, which is codified love is not God’s creature but God’s nature.

A basic reason for joyously acknowledging the theological accuracy of this lesson is that the acknowledgement of Christ’s death as sacrificial atonement endorses the Reformation understanding of the forensic nature of justification. I quote the lesson:

'The plan of salvation, kept secret for ages, was now fully revealed to the universe in the obedient death of the Son of God on the cross. God had provided the sacrifice, and now its atoning power was available to every human being who will look to the Cross as the exclusive way of salvation. (85)'

This statement is based on the most important lines ever written: Romans 3:21–26. There the atonement is described and explained as part of Paul's elucidation of the forensic nature of justification."

Interestingly, he leaves out the sentence which immediately precedes his quote from the Lesson, which shows that they do not believe that the atonement was completed on the Cross. They say: "'It is finished' meant that the perfect atoning sacrifice had once and for all been offered and that heaven and earth had been reconnected through it." Notice that they say that "the perfect atoning sacrifice had once and for all been offered"--but not that the atonement itself had been completed. There is nothing in this lesson that indicates the atonement was completed and finished on the Cross, or that our salvation is secured by Christ's atonement on the Cross.

Then later on, Ford writes:


"Appropriately, the writer of this lesson in the Bible Study Guide has focused on what happened at Gethsemane. Anyone who reads what he has written will have the essence of the biblical teaching on the atonement. Calvary apart from Gethsemane is incomprehensible. The weight of the sin of the world began in the garden of the olive press to deprive our Lord of life. Thus, it is impossible to believe that Gethsemane and Calvary were merely gestures of the love of God for sinners. They were that but they were also incalculably more, and the writer of this lesson has made that very clear and should be richly commended. He has correctly invoked 'the second death' as the penalty for sin, and Christ experienced that penalty. The cross magnified the law and satisfied justice as well as providing atonement and expiation."

First, notice that he repeats the false SDA teaching that the sin-bearing atonement of Christ began in Gethsemane (which, by the way, is similar to the Mormon teaching on the atonement occurring in Gethsemane). He also says that the "weight of the sin of the world" began to "deprive" Christ of life in Gethsemane. This contradicts Jesus' own testimony that He laid down His own life and took it up again.

Notice also that he says that Christ experienced the penalty of "the second death." This would mean that Jesus Christ ceased to exist (and was forever annihilated--"the second death" in SDA theology) on the Cross and that the Resurrection was instead a "re-creation." This is absolute heresy.

Ford then concludes his article with the following comments:


"On page 84, the issue is raised about the connection between Christ’s atoning death and the natural immortality of the Godhead. Again, our writer sets forth the issue deftly. Deity cannot sink and die. God the Son died derivatively through his human nature. He is one person with two natures and whatever is done in either nature has the worth of the person. As in the womb, so in the tomb deity was quiescent, not dead.

With joy and gratitude, I salute the writer of this Bible Study Guide lesson and I pray every reader will gather all the riches encapsulated in this lesson.

So he tries to get around the issue of Christ's deity "dying" or ceasing to exist, by saying that it was only "quiescent." But in practical terms, this is essentially the same as saying that He ceased to exist. If His deity was "inactive," then it was dead--gone. This teaching necessitates a belief in multiple gods ("God the Son" who was inactive/ceased, and "God the Father"/"God the Holy Spirit" who continued to run the universe). This is polytheism and a denial of the deity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity.

Here are some excerpts from this Lesson 10 that Ford praises so highly, most of which are from page 84 which he references specifically in the above quote:


"It is to this cup that Jesus was referring when He asked the Father to let it be taken away from Him, if possible (Matt. 26:39, Mark 14:36). He was experiencing loneliness--the abandonment of the disciples and particularly the abandonment of God. He sought the company and support of the disciples but didn't get it. And now, all by Himself, He asked the Father not to forsake Him. The answer that came back to Him from within the darkness of the divine silence was, 'There is no other way to save the human race.' Jesus voluntarily acquiesced to the will of the Father.


"Darkness: Handed Over to the Enemy

"In Gethsemane, and now in the events leading to the Cross, Jesus
faced as never before the forces of evil. The struggle against satanic
powers was to reach indescribable dimensions, testing the Savior to
the very core of His being


"According to Matthew 26:45, 46, Jesus was handed over into the
hands of sinners. The verb expresses the idea of a transfer of a possession
from one to another. Indeed, already 'the light of God was
receding from His vision, and He was passing into the hands of the
powers of darkness
.'--Ellen G. White, Bible Echo and Signs of the
Times, August 1, 1892. Now He was going to be delivered totally into
the hands of sinners; that is, into the hands of evil powers. For Him
this was the hour ' 'when darkness reigns' ' (Luke 22:53, NIV), when
He was to experience total separation from the Father's love. Christ
was going into the kingdom of darkness by Himself
; and yet, it was
there, in that kingdom, that He would defeat evil once and for all. [...]


"On the cross, Jesus was suffering intensely. But so was the Father.
God was in Christ, consequently, 'the omnipotent God suffered with
His Son.'--Ellen G. White, The Upward Look, p. 223. [...] What was the nature of the suffering experienced by the Godhead that caused Christ to ask, ' 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' ' (Matt. 27:46, NIV).

"On the cross God experienced something He had never before experienced:
The penalty for sin. 'It was necessary for the awful darkness
to gather about His soul because of the withdrawal of the Father's love
and favor; for He was standing in the sinner's place. . . . The righteous
One must suffer the condemnation and wrath of God, not in vindictiveness;
for the heart of God yearned with greatest sorrow when His
Son, the guiltless, was suffering the penalty of sin. This sundering of
the divine powers
will never again occur throughout the eternal
ages.'--Ellen G. White Comments, The SDA Bible Commentary,
vol. 7, p. 924.

"This statement indicates, first, that the Father withdrew His love
from the Son not because He did not love Him but because Jesus was
dying in our place. There was no one available to mediate God's love
to His Son!
Second, there was no vindictiveness in the heart of the
Father as His Son was dying for the sins of the world. He did not
rejoice in the death of the Son but was suffering with Him. Third, the
real penalty God paid for our sins was 'the sundering of the divine
.' Ellen White is taking us inside the mystery of the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, describing for us what
the Godhead underwent as Jesus was on the cross. The verb to sunder
means 'to break or force apart.' That which should have remained
united was torn apart

"In short, through Christ's sacrifice the Godhead was accepting
responsibility for the world's sins and, more so, the Godhead was suffering
the consequences of these sins. Could it be that the Godhead,
who cannot die, felt in a unique way--through the temporary sundering
of the divine powers--the full intensity of the eternal death of the
fallen race, through the temporal exclusion of the Son from the unity
of the Godhead?
The plan of salvation, the atonement, pulled the
Trinity apart
but momentarily. This experience of extreme 'pain'
within the Godhead
took place only once and will never occur again.


"[...]'He bowed his head and gave up
his spirit' (John 19:30, NIV). The language suggests that He went to
sleep, trusting in the goodness, benevolence, and love of the Father
. [...]


"Discussion Questions:


"2 Dwell on Wednesday's lesson, the idea of the temporal sundering
of the Godhead
. What can you take from that which can
help you understand the depth of the atonement? How was that
experience in the Godhead 'the penalty' for our sin? Discuss
your answer in class on Sabbath.


"Summary: On the cross, Jesus experienced the fullness of the sinner's
eternal separation from God. [...]" (

In the above excerpts from Lesson 10 of the 4th quarter 2008 official SDA quarterly, there are many incredibly heretical statements. They are teaching a totally polytheistic "Godhead," saying that there was a "sundering" of the "divine powers" (gods) when "Jesus" was on the cross. They also show their teaching that Christ ceased to exist when he died and was separated from their other two gods during those three days, saying, "He went to sleep, trusting in the goodness, benevolence, and love of the Father"!

By endorsing this Sabbath School Lesson and writing what he has in his review, unfortunately Desmond Ford shows very clearly that he is still very much SDA in his theology, and in bondage to Adventism's heretical, anti-gospel, anti-christ teachings.

I'm sure he helped many people start wonderful journeys out of Adventism, especially several decades ago, but he himself is still stuck in it. And nowadays it seems that most of his "followers" have tried to reconcile his teachings with Adventist doctrine and have remained in Adventism, much like he has also done.

Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 5928
Registered: 9-2006

Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 2:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow Jeremy,

The false teachings of the SDA church leaders are so convoluted that, for me as a never been, it is hard to follow all the rabbit trails that have some shades of truth, only to lead to death. They are like the piper who whistles a tune to the gullible, “Come my little ones, follow me to the chopping block, it will only hurt a second, and its good for you.”

Thank you for having the guts to bring this out in the open, so that it can be examined in the light of scripture. This sort of thing is so weird, it is reminiscent of the day when I began to examine closely what was said by Adventist as they professed love, but in the back currents, lies that lead away from Christ and not too Christ.
It was then that I began to get suspicious of the Adventist religion, then downright alarmed, then downright flabbergasted.
As time went on I had visitors from the Adventist themselves, and as we visited that true spirit that led them kept cropping up its evil head right there in my own living room. I was blown away as this spirit tried desperately to hide itself, but would, in spite of itself, crop up in the whisperings and back biting of mutual friends who were not there to protect themselves.

It was like watching a Jeckle and Hyde drama as this thing would catch itself exposing itself, then pull the blinds to try to keep me from seeing its true nature. It was really something to watch.

At one time the Holy Spirit perhaps was dealing with Fords heart in a mighty way, but perhaps he finally came around to the same decision than Dale Ratzlaff faced when he was faced with following truth or accepting error. The day they told him, “Dale, just take the job and the money. Don’t make waves.”

If Dale had rolled over and said, “Yes, I’ll take the job security and the money, and I will not make waves.” There would be no Dale Razlaff fighting against the heresy that the Adventist church is steeped in, no books called “Truth Led Me Out.” Or “The Truth About Adventist Truth”. I am satisfied that if Dale had met the demands of acquiescence and squelched what his heart told him for the sake of ‘the job’, you would be reading the same convoluted thing you are witnessing from Ford.

I believe it is possible for one to be honest at heart, but still mistaken, but it is another thing to find oneself to be mistaken, and squelch truth, once discovered for the sake of job and position. Once a person puts his hand to the plow of truth residing in the Bible, he best not look back, or he can expect a certain judgment and destitution of heart and soul to take place.

I am most appreciative of those like you Jeremy, who continues to expose the stink hole of Adventism, and who hit it hard and head on. Its like I keep telling them about by job in management, it ain’t popular, but somebody’s gotta do it.

Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision.

I’ll tell you what I think Jeremy, if God is leading people out of Adventism by his Spirit, they best not let their shirt tail hit them in the back until they are out the door. Its nothing to play with, and mess around with, it is poisonous and it is deadly. Alarmingly so. And further more, yall best not be going back down there and petting the old snake, there just ain’t no profit in it.

Anybody that goes back in there and sits with them slocking on their water bottles and back slapping them needs a two by four upside his head, and knocked into the middle of next week.

Now this character is sitting down there back slapping with one another about how good a job they are doing when he had a chance to deny it and come on out, now lookit’ him, just another dead skunk in the middle of the road!

I read somewhere where some guy said, “The bible is a dangerous thing to handle.” I agree with him if you’re set up on mishandling it.
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 3131
Registered: 10-2004

Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 10:54 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks, River. I appreciate your support and response.

I just think that we just can't compromise with this stuff/heresy, or soften our response to it, no matter who the person is. It's dangerous stuff, as you said so well.

Registered user
Username: Philharris

Post Number: 1972
Registered: 5-2007

Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 11:13 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


What I don't get is the logic of Dr. Desmond Ford.

He could see that the IJ is false.

Since Ellen indorsed this 'cornfield' doctrine with a 'vision from God'.....

You would think he would conclude she was a false prophet.

Therefore: Adventist teach "another gospel" which is no gospel at all.

I just don't see how he can be on both sides of this issue.

Fearless Phil
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 1865
Registered: 4-2000

Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 12:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

To his credit, Dr. Ford no longer uses quotes from Ellen White in his articles on his website (, magazine, etc. Also, his associate, Ron Allen, does the same. Pastor Allen was delighted when my wife and I left Seventh-day Adventism in 2000. Moreover, Dr. Ford is now a former Adventist at his own request--although he says that it was primarily a political necessity in enable him to teach part-time at an Australian Baptist seminary. His ministry served as an important bridge for us as we were leaving Adventism.

Admittedly, former Adventists come in many different stripes with a vast asortment of beliefs. It is important to remember that no single former Adventist speaks for all formers. Unfortunately, Dr. Ford's SDA background still shines through his presentations--often too boldly and too obviously (i.e., his sabbatarianism, vegetarianism, soul sleep, etc.). It seems to me that he acts more like an Adventist whenever he is in SDA circles. This tactic gives him additional exposure and credibility with them. In this respect, he still acts like an Adventist to an Adventist audience.

Good speakers often try to fashion their comments to please their audience and/or to align with them in some meaningful way. Ethically, however, Dr. Ford should not be doing so theologically. Without any doubt, many former Adventists still cling to some aspects of their former belief system. It typically takes several years to fully sever one's connection with a cult. Still others never find themselves able to fully transition to biblical Christianity. Indeed, this is what Adventism really does to people as they linger in a self-inflicted limbo (becoming unchurched, agnostics, atheists, etc.) Dudley Canright, Adventism's most notable heretic, sadly noticed this even in his day.

Dennis Fischer
Registered user
Username: Philharris

Post Number: 1974
Registered: 5-2007

Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 1:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


I understand what you are saying. My first cousin, once removed (mother's cousin) is Donald Mote who was a critic of Ellen White who took over where the Ballinger's left off. Don never completely dropped the SDA line though and at times still sounded like an Adventist. In reviewing some of his publications, I find his thinking to be contridictory.

But, I repeat, it is hard for me to understand why a person doesn't "connect the dots" and reach logical conclusions. Either Ellen was a true prophet or she was a false one. You can not have it both ways.

Fearless Phil
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 1866
Registered: 4-2000

Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is hard to understand why Dr. Ford can't "connect the dots" theologically. On the other hand, it took me over 50 years to see the gospel light. Truly, our sovereign God never goes on a rescue mission that fails. With His own timing, God called my wife and I out of the darkness of Adventism. To God alone be all the glory!

Dr. Ford deserves our prayers as he step by step transitions out of the deception and stronghold of Adventism.

Dennis Fischer
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 5930
Registered: 9-2006

Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 3:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think, just from what I've read of his stuff, and I'm not saying it for sure, but I think the sucker just rolled over Phil, he probably connected the dots, then looked away, and the next time he looked back, the dots were conveniently at a more tolerable distance from his check book.

But long spills won't cover the puss filled stink hole of the Adventist leadership.

I don't feel soft enough to gather up the time to pray for him, just right now at least. But yall go ahead if you got it in you.

I ain't saying he don't need prayer, but Adventist leadership disgust me. As for as him deserving prayers, I got my doubts.

I won't beat around the bush and say I feel all mushy for Adventist leadership, because I don't, every time I get really thinking about it, I get really mad and I ain't near in a praying mood.
Registered user
Username: Skeeter

Post Number: 493
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 4:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dennis said :
Dr. Ford deserves our prayers as he step by step transitions out of the deception and stronghold of Adventism. "

I agree. I have read and listened to many of Desmond Fords talks and I believe him to be a man with a heart for God and a man with much knowledge and while I cannot understand why someone of his intelligence has not yet "connected the dots" in some areas concerning Adventism... I believe God is using Mr Ford in a way he cant use most of us "formers".
God is using the Ratzlaffs, the Tinkers, and others in the way He knows is best, and I believe that He is also using Mr Ford to reach those Adventists that perhaps cannot be reached by someone else.

While most of us I believe will benefit in getting completely out of Adventism and as River says "dont go back and pet the snake"...
Just maybe God is using Mr Ford in the way he will be able to reach the most people,, and just because I cant understand it doesnt make it wrong. (IMO)
I still dont understand a LOT of things but I believe God is teaching me as I am able to comprehend it. (Guess I am a slow learner) LOL
BUT I try to learn from the mistakes of the past and let go of error and hold tightly to truth as it is revealed to me.
That's why my favorite saying is :
When a man who is HONESTLY mistaken learns TRUTH, he will either quit being mistaken, or quit being honest." I have been "honestly mistaken" about a lot of things. I believe we are all on our own journey with the Lord and He has His own special way of dealing with each of us and on His timetable, not ours.
Registered user
Username: Skeeter

Post Number: 494
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 4:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

River I am sure that is true that Mr Ford is NOT "deserving" of prayers.
I am not "deserving" of anyones prayers either,,, but I sure hope you will pray for me anyway. :-)

Skeeter/ Francie
Registered user
Username: Martinc

Post Number: 120
Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 10:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dr. Ford has long been a hero of mine, ever since Glacier View in 1980. His refutation of the IJ, and preaching on justification by faith greatly helped my understanding, and prepared me to leave that religion. I admire the courage he displayed at that time.

However, his glowing critique of the Quarterly is disturbing, and I am wondering if he has actually made any changes in his theology since 1980. He still is a staunch Sabbatarian, holds on to Ellen's inspiration and her tritheism, and it appears that his vegetarianism flows from a belief in EGW's materialistic "health message." He seems to have reached a very flat theological plateau and been comfortable to stay there for 30 years.

I am not questioning his salvation, but I am questioning his obedience. This man must experience some real cognitive dissonance, yet he is squelching it for the sake of "witnessing" to, and reforming SDA's. I'm sure that he is trying to praise and encourage what he perceives is positive, but he is merely trying to find a jewel in the swine's snout. There are questions of integrity here. I would be glad to hear that he has actually made significant progress away from the SDA core heresies, so please enlighten me.

Martin C

(Message edited by MartinC on January 31, 2010)
Registered user
Username: Skeeter

Post Number: 497
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 11:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I guess I just had not thought of it that way....
"I'm sure that he is trying to praise and encourage what he perceives is positive, but he is merely trying to find a jewel in the swine's snout. There are questions of integrity here."

I have been told before (more than once) that I tend to want to see and believe the best in everyone. I know that is true (until they prove me wrong at least) I guess that is just one more flaw in my character. :-/
Maybe part of it is that I know Mr Ford to be a talented speaker and a man of intelligence,, so I just keep hoping that what he is doing is somehow in Gods plan to help bring some out of Adventism. I hope I am not wrong but it certainly is possible..Unfortunately it wouldnt be the first time I have been mistaken and dissapointed to find that someone I respected ended up being someone practicing outright deceit.
dont know what to do about it but pray for the man and hope that God will convict him of the errors he wants to hold onto in such a way he will not be able to resist letting go and embracing truth and sharing it with others.
I hate to see talent such as his wasted on error instead of being used for Gods glory.

(Message edited by skeeter on January 31, 2010)
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 5932
Registered: 9-2006

Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 4:54 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am not angry with Ford, no more or less than I am angry with Adventist leadership in general, he's just another cog in the wheel.

In particular the ones who know there is heresy in there, but roll over for the sake of keeping the job, but wait! There's more, with this you get job firings, leaving ministers who do have a heart for God instead of the job, destitute of housing, unemployment etc.

But wait, if you order today you get workers who are raised up in Adventism and work in the system!

They make a move from the status quo, they get fired from university jobs and black balled, with a big foot set on their head and they are left destitute with no place to go.

Ministers and workers have to walk out the door having been fired, and its like stepping out of a space capsule into vacuum for them.

The leadership could help them make the transition, but I haven't heard of them doing that, have you?

In one case even accusing the employee of taking equipment. Leadership turns on them like mad dogs.

Do I sound angry? Even if the good Lord allows it so they don't turn around and go back in when they face the outside world (Which I suspect is the case) the offense is no less and those leadership will be held no less accountable.

You don't believe me? Read the story of Moses and you will begin to get the idea.

I don't stay all angry and scruntched up about it, but right now I am following on the heels of Keri's case, and I am just having a hard time getting up a case of feel sorry's for that mess.
I guess, more than anger, it's just my heart gets to grieving and I can't tell the difference.

P.S Skeeter you got a soft heart, cultivate that soft heart and God can work with that.
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 1867
Registered: 4-2000

Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 12:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


I jotted down your excellent statement:


When a man who is honestly mistaken learns truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or quit being honest.

Thanks for your insight in creating a meaningful and powerful gem. Truly, those who are intent upon accurate answers will no longer remain in a toxic-faith system.

Dennis Fischer
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 10893
Registered: 12-2003

Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 4:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm on my way out the door for women's Bible study, but I just read this thread for the first time.

Jeremy--THANK YOU!!

Dr. Ford's comments are totally revealing. He is still Adventist in his sympathy, and he's adjusting his theology to fit. Those comments are untenable, and the SS Lesson he commented on is heresy.

I totally agree with you re: the moral influence theory that came out of Loma Linda. It is bloodless atonement, and it is completely heresy. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are FULL of Paul's commands to rebuke false teachers and to protect the church from insidious heresy that arises.

There is no excuse for cutting slack for false teachers. Sincerity and "niceness" do not substitute for the new birth. We cannot assume that people are saved just because they are sincere.

Oh, my goodness... I could go on...

Gotta go...
Registered user
Username: Asurprise

Post Number: 1156
Registered: 7-2007
Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 6:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My brother flew over here to the western U.S. for our dad's birthday. I got to talk to him for awhile concerning what he believes. I think he also knows that Ellen White contradicts the Bible in a few places, but he still is an SDA. He told me that he preached a sermon at his church recently about not being dogmatic. He thinks people should "accept everyone" - meaning not try to tell them they're wrong - whether they're Adventist, Islamic or Mormon! I told him that the Bible is dogmatic. It says that the ONLY WAY to be saved is through Jesus! He agreed with that and then said "but we don't have to be dogmatic." It was frustrating to talk to him. (He preaches once a month - I think he's an elder at his church.)

I said something like: "so you just read Ellen White to get the "nuggets of truth" in between the false things she wrote. Right?"
His face lit up in a big grin as he replied "yes." How do you tell someone like that, that if Ellen White was wrong on SOME things, then she's a false prophet and there AREN'T ANY nuggets of truth!!?? I think that if I'd asked him if Mohammad or Joseph Smith had "nuggets of truth," he would have said yes.

I'm wondering if Desmond Ford is in that mindset?
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 5935
Registered: 9-2006

Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 7:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Is this the same brother I know Dianne?
Registered user
Username: Asurprise

Post Number: 1160
Registered: 7-2007
Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 8:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, the very same one; River.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration