2012-05-17 22:08Z

The Latest Deception Concerning the Atonement

A Review of “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,”¹ by Kevin Ferris, With Reflections Concerning the Misrepresentation of the Investigative Judgment by Some in Contemporary Adventism. Note: This is the first of two responses to be published on GCO. This item deals more with certain aspects and the Spirit of Prophecy materials. On June 17 we published a second reply by Kevin D. Paulson dealing more particularly with a biblical response to “What We Really Believe About the Judgment.”

Published online June 9, 2005 in the Adventist Review, reviewed by Larry Kirkpatrick and published online originally at GreatControversy.org, June 14, 2005

Document URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/kir-reallyijferris.php.

Document Outline

Starting Places
In Sum, What Does Ferris’ Article Say?
Not Judged by Works?
Calvary Central? Atonement Finished or in Process?
“So Far From Being Made on the Cross…”
“It Should Be Understood That We Mean…”
Revelatory or Determinative?
Obedience Tacked On
Pro-Ford
Summing Up: Last Generation Wimp-Out or Last Generation Theology?
Endnotes
Appendix A: The Desmond Ford Phenomenon

Starting Places

Some will read Kevin Ferris’ article on the judgment and wonder how there could be any fuss over it. After all, they will say, its content sounds so… conventional. Other Adventists will, in the piece, immediately detect a theological line with which they are all too familiar, one they deem hostile to present truth. Whether you agree with the one group or the other, at the end of this article you may understand how two mutually exclusive theological streams today divide the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Let us proceed, calling to mind one important thought:

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.²

The subject of the sanctuary, as understood by Adventists, opened to view, not one optional system of truth among many, nor a system of truth developed by men apart from God’s leading. Rather, the subject of the sanctuary is likened to a key which unlocked the mystery of the 1844 disappointment, and opened to view a system of truth which inspiration calls “complete.” Not only did it explain the disappointment of 1844, but it brought to light the present position and duty of God’s people.

This is our starting point for this article. We have studied the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White, and we accept, advocate, and uphold the teachings agreed by the worldwide body of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. When we recall our study of the passages in Daniel, Leviticus, Hebrews, and Revelation, and we realize that our fundamental belief #17 states that “the writings of Ellen G. White are an authoritative and continuing source of truth,”³ we realize that “the sanctuary was the key” paragraph is either inspired or not, contains either truth or not. Our starting place then is that we accept this as light; we believe what is given us on The Great Controversy, p. 424, is truth.

We will find, later in this article, that that decision is the dividing line between two completely different views of the judgment.

One other starting place, from 1905:

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?⁴

A century ago it was foretold that the heavenly sanctuary teaching would be specifically attacked. It is true that A. F. Ballenger and J. H. Kellogg made just such an attack at that time, but notice that her concern seems pointed beyond the current horizon, for she uses the phrasing “on which there will be” departure. The truth, it seems, is that the sanctuary was attacked very subtly in the 1950s and much more directly in the 1970s and 80s.

In Sum, What Does Ferris’ Article Say?

What does Ferris’ article say? Nothing that would seem uncommon or unexpected these days. The author of the article reviewed writes in a very roundabout way. However, if you take his article, and number the paragraphs from 1-17,⁵ we expect you will agree that his four particular concerns are:

Paragraphs 4-8. We are not judged by our works.
Paragraphs 9-13. The sacrificial death of Christ on Calvary begins and ends the process of atonement.
Paragraph 14. The judgment reviews but does not determine.
Paragraphs 14 and 15. The effect of the gospel is mere forensic accounting (Only in paragraph 16 does the author begin to make place for some transformation in the believer—albeit quite after they have been saved).

Before coming to his four main burdens, the author introduces some obscure ideas about the judgment and whether God will be fair, whether enough time will be spent reviewing each case, and other superficial concerns. Is this part of the article intended to make light of the investigative judgment? We are left to wonder.

But why the four main concerns listed above? How do these four points relate together?

First, the author on the judgment: “If we believe judgment to be based on our personal good works, then millions from other religions will have an equal place with Christians, if not better.”⁶ But if the Christian is not judged by works, then the great controversy is denied significance. What is the power of the gospel? Then no human evidence will be evaluated. No great determination between right and wrong is finally offered to the universe. But when Satan came to God, God was the one who asked him, “Have you seen My servant Job?” (Job 1:8; 2:3). God was the one who pointed to people for evidence that His creatures can, in His divine strength, live a morally upstanding life (Philippians 4:13). Satan denied it and he would prefer to deny it now. If the Christian is not judged by works, then we are offered an obscure battle over who is stronger, Christ or Satan. May the strongest one win: Creator or creature. What, pray tell, does that resolve? Since Satan becomes the underdog, will our sympathies adhere then to him?

Making the atonement entirely centered at Christ and the cross and seeing no transformation in man has the same effect. The great controversy war is made non-significant. Making the judgment into a mere review rather than an assize where cases are actually determined has the same effect. And at last, reducing the gospel to a script with only a forensic effect outside of the individual lands us in the same place. The significance of the last generation is nullified and in that nullification, so is the meaning of every other aspect of the gospel, from the incarnation, life, and sacrifice of Christ, to the whole of Christian experience. Ferris’ subtle presentation of the gospel drills holes in the bottom and drains away the significance.

That then, is where the author is going. His four points have the effect of eviscerating the investigative judgment. But enough foretelling. Let us now peruse his attempt to persuade.

Not Judged By Works?

If we are not judged by works, then what will be the basis of our judgment? It is hard to know exactly what the author means by “personal good works.” Does he mean that which we do apart from God? Does he mean good works that God in us does in us (Galatians 2:20)? It would seem from the article that he has in mind good things done apart from Christ, for his examples are the works of Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists, none of which accept Jesus Christ as God and personal Savior. But this does not fit the Adventist understanding of the judgment. The works of all men are recorded so that they can receive the deeds done in the body (2 Corinthians 5:10). But the atonement is made effective only for those who have professed Christ. Judgment is for every man, but the atonement is only for those who are found entitled to the benefits.

There are perhaps then two groups who can receive the benefits of the atonement: those who have had a sufficient exposure to Christianity and determined to accept Christ, and those who were so situated that they never received a satisfactory representation of the Christian faith, but who nevertheless chose to live in harmony with the goodness of God as they knew Him (Romans 2:6-16).

The judgment is necessary for the success of the great controversy. Listen:

We have evidence that there are many deceivers in the world, men who say, ‘I go, sir,’ but go not. They may speak smooth words, and make fair speeches; but they deceive; they reveal in their lives that their words are not wrought in God. The practical life is a genuine index of the character. By our words and works we reveal to the world, to angels, and to men whether we believe in Christ as a personal Saviour.⁷

We are judged by works because the practical life is a “genuine” index of character. So heaven uses it. But the reader will note that each of the author’s four concerns land right at the point of character. They deny the significance of the character of the Christian.

After the author asserts that millions from other religions will have an equal place with Christians in the judgment, he proceeds to mention the good works of Buddhists, Muslims, and Atheists.⁸ He cherry-picks a few Ellen G. White and Bible quotations to support his notions, but they do not support him as well as he would like. For example, here are a few lines from the writings of Ellen G. White directly contradicting his theories.

Ministers sometimes tell the people that they have nothing to do but believe; that Jesus has done it all, and their own works are nothing. But the Word of God plainly states that in the Judgment the scales will be balanced accurately, and the decisions will be based on the evidence adduced.⁹

One man becomes ruler of ten cities, another of five, another of two, each man receiving exactly in proportion to the improvement he has made on the talents entrusted to his keeping. Our efforts in works of righteousness, in our own behalf and for the salvation of souls, will have a decided influence on our recompense.¹⁰

We are justified by faith and judged by works.¹¹

The Lord is at the door, and all the manhood and womanhood of our spiritual being is to be called into activity. We are to be justified by faith and judged by works. God’s law claims obedience from all, and condemns disobedience. All are tested and proved, to see if they will keep the law of the heavenly courts.¹²

The principle that is to regulate the proceedings of the last great assize is contained in the words, ‘Justified by faith; judged by works.’ This is our day of trust, a time of solemn privilege. Soon is to come our day of reckoning.¹³

The judgment of works must be connected specifically to the person of each individual judged. If the author means our personal good works done apart from Christ, then those would all be works done without faith, and they would be sin (Romans 14:23). Every person’s works are recorded so that in the end they receive a just recompense. But only those professing Christ are in the end found worthy of receiving the benefits of the atonement. The author apparently forgets that those who are evaluated in the judgment are those who have professed Christ. Those who have had a sufficient representation of Christianity only to reject it, are manifesting works without faith in Christ. Having made no profession of faith in Christ, they are not even evaluated in the judgment of professed believers. Such are by their own choice automatically lost.

In the Review article we consider, of the fifteen times the word “judgment” is used, only once is it in the phrase “investigative judgment.” Ferris’ words? No. That is when he quotes Fundamental Belief #23. Telling it is that he cannot bring himself to utter it except under necessity.

It is regrettable that the author is not clearer about what he means about our not being judged by works. It leaves us in an ambiguous place in seeking to understand him. In any case, in its ambiguous form, his expression offers the church no help, but only confusion. He directly contradicts inspiration.

Calvary Central? Atonement Finished or in Process?

Next, the author presses home his view that Calvary is really, really good. Yes, this is a red herring argument, for no one is arguing that Calvary is not really, really good. No one is arguing against the importance, the centrality, the perfection, the completeness of Calvary, for what it is. The author offers us several paragraphs telling how important Calvary is. Since we all appreciate Jesus’ sacrifice for us, such talk on the author’s part is likely to evoke a strong positive reaction. But as we said, this is not the question. Adventists are not at all divided today over whether or not Calvary is really, really good. The author, after building up positive energy by speaking of the importance of Calvary, suddenly shifts the discussion ever so slightly so that Calvary is made the only thing and the atonement is limited to the offering in the courtyard. Bait and switch. Calvary is really, really good, is changed for, the atonement is finished at the cross. Will readers detect the switcheroo?

The author quotes Ellen White: “Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of man was full and complete. The condition of the atonement had been fulfilled. The work for which He had come to this earth was accomplished.”¹⁴ Yes, Calvary is the culmination of the sacrificial type and antitype in that here the antitypical offering is finally made. But while the sacrificial system is completed, the atonement is not completed. The blood must first be ministered through the sanctuary system. The author replaces a completed phase of the atonement for a completed atonement.

How can the author of this article quote Ellen White at Acts of the Apostles, p. 29 and then ignore Mrs. White’s next pages that outline the beginning of His high priestly ministry, and the fact that Calvary is NOT the end of the process of atonement but only a significant part of the whole? He is selective in his use of Ellen White (the reason for which we shall see before concluding this article). In fact, when we go to Mrs. White’s definitive discussion of the judgment and the atonement in the chapters of The Great Controversy, we find precisely the opposite of Ferris’ doctrine. For example,

In the typical system, which was a shadow of the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ, the cleansing of the sanctuary was the last service performed by the high priest in the yearly round of ministration. It was the closing work of the atonement—a removal or putting away of sin from Israel. It prefigured the closing work in the ministration of our High Priest in heaven, in the removal or blotting out of the sins of His people, which are registered in the heavenly records. This service involves a work of investigation, a work of judgment; and it immediately precedes the coming of Christ in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; for when He comes, every case has been decided. Says Jesus: ‘My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be’ (Revelation 22:12). It is this work of judgment, immediately preceding the second advent, that is announced in the first angel’s message of Revelation 14:7: ‘Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come.’¹⁵

Far from a finished process at the cross, this passage speaks of “the closing work of the atonement,” paralleled here with “the removal or blotting out of the sins of His people.” The parallel work in heaven and in the hearts of Jesus’ followers on earth is clearly shown.

And again,

[Describing the Day of Atonement] The whole ceremony was designed to impress the Israelites with the holiness of God and His abhorrence of sin; and, further, to show them that they could not come in contact with sin without becoming polluted. Every man was required to afflict his soul while this work of atonement was going forward. All business was to be laid aside, and the whole congregation of Israel were to spend the day in solemn humiliation before God, with prayer, fasting, and deep searching of heart.¹⁶

As she describes the type, she speaks of a cooperative human part “while this work of atonement was going forward.” Then, to the next page:

For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record. As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ’s work for the redemption of men is completed there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of His solemn work—to cleanse the sanctuary.

As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation—a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem His people; for when He comes, His reward is with Him to give to every man according to his works. Revelation 22:12.

Thus those who followed in the light of the prophetic word saw that, instead of coming to the earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His coming.¹⁷

Until 1844 the sins of every believer remained on record, no exceptions. Only in 1844, long after the cross, was begun the “work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary.” Mark you, this work of atonement “began when the 2300 days ended.” “Christ then [1844] entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His coming.” Many more like references could be given to show that Ferris’ idea of the atonement finished at the cross is false. Perhaps the samples above suffice.

The author quotes from certain of the church’s current Fundamental Belief statements in support of his views, but continues, insisting that “If we agree that a perfect atonement was made at Calvary, then it stands to reason that this included the whole process and not just a part of it.”¹⁸ That is, Ferris wants to use “perfect” and “complete” to mean “entire” and “finished.” He wants to use references to the fullness of the sacrifice also to limit the atonement to Calvary only. Why? This he must do if he would forestall the real significance of the atonement and the investigative judgment. For the true significance of this doctrine is that there is a work of purification in the hearts of believers on earth in connection with the work of Christ as our Mediator presently going forward in the heavenly sanctuary.

But the atonement is not about a sneaky process for getting people “saved.” The atonement is about how God works so that humans can be transformed and how He can deal fairly and effectively resolve the sin problem once and for all. Romans 3:26 contains both issues: the atonement will answer how God can be both Just and justifier.

There is a tendency by some to misunderstand the active exercise of faith and replace that with mere mental assent. These then think that to “by faith accept” the atonement means to mentally agree with an intellectual idea, rather than that to “by faith accept” actually means to actively cooperate with God and accept an inward transformation by His Holy Spirit that radically changes not merely our legal standing but even what we are.

The language Ferris points to (“perfect atonement”) in our 1980 statement of Fundamental Beliefs actually is derived, not from previous Seventh-day Adventist belief statements, but from the Ellen G. White Appendix to the book Questions on Doctrine (QOD), which was the first major, intentional, formal deployment of such language. The authors of QOD sifted through Ellen G. White statements to try to find quotes they could use to support their New Theology.¹⁹ They even said that they wrote QOD to “deny every statement or implication that… His [Christ’s] death on the cross was not a full and complete sacrificial atonement.”²⁰ And they did find statements where Mrs. White spoke of Christ’s sacrifice as a “perfect atonement.” But they also ran into some that blockaded their theology. Examples?

The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the most holy place, where Jesus stands before the ark, making His final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God.²¹

Attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the holy of holies and there appears in the presence of God to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of man—to perform the work of investigative judgment and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits.²²

Our Saviour is in the sanctuary pleading in our behalf. He is our interceding high priest, making an atoning sacrifice for us, pleading in our behalf the efficacy of His blood.²³

Mrs. White says that presently Jesus is “making His final intercession,” engaging “in the last acts of His ministration,” is presently “in the sanctuary pleading in our behalf.” It is obvious that the atonement is presently being made, but it is equally obvious that the plan of Ferris to consider it only a process completed “at Calvary.”

“So Far From Being Made on the Cross…”

What is interesting, however, is to look back at the pre-QOD statements of belief and see how Seventh-day Adventists expressed themselves on this point before then. In Article II of our 1872 Fundamental Belief statement, we have this language:

That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in Heaven, where, with his own blood, he makes atonement for our sins; which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of his work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in Heaven. See Leviticus ch. 16, Hebrews 8:4, 5; 9:6, 7; &c.²⁴

It is noteworthy that the statement does not speak of a perfect atonement completed, but rather of Christ’s current ministry in the heavenly sanctuary since 1844, in which “He makes atonement” for our sins. The paragraph goes on to explicitly state, “which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of his work as priest…” That is, the atonement is still being completed.

In the 1931 statement of beliefs, we have item three that says that Jesus “lives to make intercession for us,” and item four, “That every person, in order to obtain salvation, must experience the new birth. This comprises an entire transformation of life and character by the re-creative power of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Matthew 18:3; Acts 2:37-39).” And later, in its 14th statement we find: “That this heavenly sanctuary is the one to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, its cleansing being, as in the type, a work of judgment, beginning with the entrance of Christ as the high priest upon the judgment phase of His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, foreshadowed in the earthly service of cleansing the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. This work of judgment in the heavenly sanctuary began in 1844. Its completion will close human probation.…”²⁵

Both Ellen White and the fundamental belief statements of the church prior to the time when Questions on Doctrine was published, all agree. The teaching of Seventh-day Adventism is that the atonement presently is in process, and that there is a connection between what Christ is doing in heaven and an internal transformation in believers who accept Him as Savior and Mediator.

“It Should Be Understood That We Mean…”

But some prefer that the atonement is a completed process already. Did the authors of QOD see the problems between their view and the view found in the writings of Ellen G. White? Yes indeed. And here was their proposed solution:

When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature—even in the writings of Ellen G. White—that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made at the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests.²⁶

The authors of that book set themselves up as interpretive lens. Read Mrs. White through this interpretive program, they said, and all will be well with us and our new evangelical friends.²⁷ That viewpoint still lives. Its essence is to reduce the investigative judgment to a mere ceremony in heaven, to disconnect Christ’s work there from the work that must be accomplished in our hearts here.

Revelatory or Determinative?

How to say this? Ferris says it as well as any. His claim is that our fundamental belief #23 (“Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary”²⁸) defines “this judgment as revelatory rather than determinative.”²⁹

This really is the very goal of the New Theology: to reduce the investigative judgment to mere recitation of a list of names of those who verbally affirmed that Christ was their Savior. Nevertheless, of this very judgment, inspiration plainly states.

As the books of record are opened in the judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God… Every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names rejected.³⁰

The reason Ferris insists on making Ellen White stand on her head, insists on selectively using her writings so as to uphold what he wishes he has an ideological precommitment to a false gospel. So he uses little chunks and snippets, and rarely if ever the longer, fuller context which would make a very different picture. Some, it appears, are determined to fool as many as possible. But in the present networked age, this approach can only lead directly to the discrediting of themselves. People can check context, review statements, peruse the writings of inspiration and watch where the weight and tenor of the entire witness of it falls. At the end of the day the truth will be clear enough for those willing to learn it.

If the investigative judgment determines whether names are accepted or rejected, then it is not merely revelatory, but is unambiguously determinative. Here again, we have selective quotation in full operation. Actually, even the fundamental belief statement #23 includes clear statements showing it is no mere forensic accounting, but that the investigative judgment includes actual transformation. See for yourself.

There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent (Biblical references: Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; 1:3; 2:16, 17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Lev. 16; Rev. 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:12.) (Emphasis added).

Whatever the deficiencies of the fundamental belief statement (it could, in fact, be dramatically improved), there is enough here to show that more than a mere forensic accounting is under consideration. The author of the article insists that “The gateway to heaven is not via the judgment, but through Calvary.”³¹ This has a rousing sound, but it bifurcates Christ’s work of intercession from Christ’s work as sinless sacrifice. Is this what Adventists “really believe about the judgment”? Actually, our 23rd fundamental belief goes to pains to demonstrate the integration of these two facets. This article in the Review goes to pains to disconnect them and then elevate the cross in such a manner as to minimize the significance of the investigative judgment.

Some have erroneously said that all this has to do with our accounting “in Him.” But this is a false notion if it is understood to mean strictly and only that Jesus’ character is accounted forensically to the believer. Notice that those who are in Christ have Christ in them. In the fundamental belief statement those who have Christ in them are found to be abiding in Him when they do what? When they keep the commandments of God and exhibit the faith of Jesus. Read the fundamental belief statement carefully. It is not Christ keeping the commandments and having the faith of Jesus here (although certainly He did keep them and did have such faith). But the reference is very clearly to those who are keeping the commandments among those living on the earth. The resulting determination is the finding of who are ready for translation. Jesus is already translated and is already dwelling in heaven. Thus, those who are keeping His commandments and abiding in Him and experiencing the faith of Jesus—those are the ones who are found to be “in Him.” It is a false separation to put apart our being in Christ from Christ’s being in us.

Obedience Tacked On

Naturally, the article closes by perpetuating the fallacy that obedience merely follows salvation. Ferris says, “as faith waits for reality, the transforming influences of His righteousness begin to impact our daily lives as His laws are written upon our hearts.”³² But the fact is that we must obey and we can only obey by the Holy Spirit; yet we receive the Holy Spirit only on condition of obedience. The fact is that in the same moment we ask our heavenly Intercessor for help to live a godly life, He answers without any fraction of delay. “In the very act of duty, God speaks, and gives His blessing.”³³ Divinity and humanity are combined³⁴ and He works in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12, 13) as we permit Him to make His good pleasure our good pleasure.³⁵

Make no mistake; the teaching presented in the Review is a misrepresentation at many levels of what we really believe about the judgment. Is “the message humanity most needs to hear at this crucial time,”³⁶ really that, as this article virtually proposes, there is, in effect, no investigative judgment? We think not.

Shame on the Review for publishing this destructive item. The Adventist Review has all but become as much of an anti-SDA attack site as others on the web, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:9). In the meantime, others of us must stand up and defend the faith from these insidious and sly approaches. Never has the warning of the Holy Spirit through Sister White been more necessary:

Notwithstanding the Bible is full of warnings against false teachers, many are ready thus to commit the keeping of their souls to the clergy… They… place implicit confidence in the words of the ministers. But are ministers infallible? How can we trust our souls to their guidance unless we know from God’s word that they are light bearers?³⁷

By the way, we do agree with at least one sentence in the article. Ferris writes, “One’s understanding of the atonement will determine one’s concept of judgment.”³⁸ Exactly! God grant that His people will study for themselves, and find the very line taken by both the Bible and the writings of contemporary inspiration given by the Holy Spirit through Ellen G. White.

Pro-Ford

Before we conclude we feel it will help the reader understand Ferris if we quote from an open letter he published via AToday.com in the year 2000. The subject was Desmond Ford. Ford was not mentioned in Ferris’ current article in the Review; we do not even know whether the Review has seen this letter before. But please note its content:

The following is an open letter addressed to Jan Paulsen, president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, from Kevin Ferris, an Adventist layman in Wishart, Queensland, Australia, dated February 20, 2000:

Dear Elder Paulsen,

I have just come from a service at the Brisbane City Baptist Church where I listened to the most outstanding preacher I have ever heard. His name is Dr. Desmond Ford.

The Baptist Church here in Brisbane has adopted Dr. Ford, and tonight’s talk was the culmination of a weekend seminar. Next week a group of Baptist officials and a finance trader have arranged a meeting to plan the establishment of a million dollar trust to be used for the promotion of Dr. Ford at future public meetings.

How my heart burned as I thought of how our church rejected one of the most valuable assets we ever had. How can we forgive ourselves?

In today’s climate of candor and fairness is it not high time we reversed this situation? There would be few honest members, who having listened to Dr. Ford just once would not say, ‘why is this man not within our ranks?’ Particularly since our current Fundamental Beliefs supports him in the matter of the sufficiency of Calvary atonement, and even more particularly that the Glacier View Consensus Statement both supported him and was agreed to by himself (a fact of which our members are unaware). So by continuing to quarantine him we are perpetrating the lie that what he preaches (including the gospel as the church understands it) is heresy, when this is not the case.

It is surely time a committee was formed to re-examine his position in view of current theological thought. And indeed for a reappraisal of those forces leading to his demise in the form of those groups whose views are now discredited. We continually subscribe to this dark legacy of events to our shame. As a loyal member of our church I am embarrassed by those events, and always will be until they are reversed.

The reversal process has begun in a small way here in Australia. Dr. Ford has preached in one of our major churches, and will do so again shortly. He has taken Sabbath School lesson classes by invitation. It will happen more and more as honest people see what should be done and do it. We should now make this access acceptable across the board in order to benefit from the message he can most capably deliver at this time.

If we were to come across a non Adventist preacher who powerfully defends the Sabbath, vividly proclaims the gospel, brilliantly champions Adventist doctrine to the extent of most of our ministers, and incisively communicates any Bible topic, we would go out of our way to see that person into the fold. Unless his name was Desmond Ford! Does this tell us something about ourselves?

Dr. Ford is also one of the finest Christian gentlemen one can meet. How appropriate it would be if our arms of love and acceptance were equally as expansive. It would be relatively easy to gather a few thousand signatures of support for extending those arms. But why should that be necessary?

I plead for your most prayerful, courageous and urgent consideration of this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Ferris³⁹

We quote the entire letter so you will have all the context. A movement was then underway to bring back Desmond Ford.⁴⁰ Ford had his membership dropped from the Seventh-day Adventist Church shortly after the failure of that attempt. But consider these points from Ferris’ letter so that we may better understand his assertions today, five years later in the Review.

Ford was “one of the most valuable assets we ever had.”
This letter above contains no less than five references to and pleas for reversal, reappraisal, and re-examination of Ford “In today’s climate of candor and fairness,” and “to re-examine his position in view of current theological thought (emphasis added).”
Ferris asserts that “our current Fundamental Beliefs supports him [Ford] in the matter of the sufficiency of Calvary atonement,” and that Ford harmonizes with “the gospel as the church [currently] understands it.”

To consider Desmond Ford and his bending of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy evidence as one of our greatest assets speaks volumes toward discrediting the author. Recall how in our short review we noted the author’s selective use of Ellen G. White material. This is the obvious dividing line between letting all of inspiration speak and only that which supports your ideas speak.

The material on Ford’s use of Mrs. White in Appendix A of this document is also enormously telling. To his Sabbath School class of Adventists ready to hear Ellen White used authoritatively, her statements, in Fordian interpretation, were presented over and over, but when Ford spoke in the back room with fellow theologians, he continuously reiterated she was not such an authority. The author of the article we review uses Ellen White authoritatively, yet insists we should reinstate Ford who uses Ellen White differently depending on whether he is talking to lay-people or theologians. This is the dividing line we mentioned before.

In his letter to Jan Paulsen, Ferris urges that Ford agreed with the Glacier View Consensus Statement. He did not mention that that statement was not voted on at Glacier View by the large body present, but more importantly, he does not consider the implications.

The Ford crisis went critical when Ford admitted there were things that had troubled him for three decades in Adventist theology, namely our understanding of 1844. A. Leroy Moore in Appendix E of The Theology Crisis,⁴³ deals with Ford’s October 27, 1979 meeting at Angwin titled, “The Investigative Judgment—Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?” Moore discusses how Ford directly disagreed with Mrs. White about A. F. Ballenger, and Moore enumerated the following points as a summary of the erroneous Ford conclusions presented at Angwin on that historic day (all emphasis in original):

a) Her statement, ‘The Bible and the Bible only is our standard of doctrine. Every point of doctrine is to come from the Bible, and the Bible is the only true source of doctrine that is unmixed with error.’—is used to support Ford’s position that ‘Ellen White did not give us a single truth of doctrine,’ and that her role is ‘pastoral, and not canonical.’

b) ‘He [Ford] announces his purpose to place White and the gift of prophecy in their proper light by removing false concepts about them.’

c) ‘Her writings are placed in sharp contrast to Scripture and all theological authority is denied.’

d) White is portrayed as reflecting—from stage to stage—the Church’s understanding at the particular stage regarding theological issues rather than presenting divinely revealed truth.

e) White is pictured as making radical changes in her theology after 1888 (while the pre-Minneapolis Great Controversy clearly places Christ’s post-ascension ministry in the Holy Place and shows Him entering the Most Holy in 1844, Ford interprets Acts of the Apostles, p. 33 so as to directly contradict this understanding); Ford praised God that she is ‘The greatest rebel we ever had among us!’

f) In this context he presents views totally contrary to her own, using isolated statements with little reference to immediate context, and in direct conflict with broader context to establish his “Ballenger” oriented concepts, declaring categorically that he presents not his own views, but White’s.

After writing the above, Moore concludes appendix E (and his book) with the following remarks:

The overwhelming evidence of direct conflict, both in statement and theology, will be documented in a later work. For the present, it is sufficient to note the characteristic reformationist pattern—claiming to believe in the prophetic gift while denying its authority, and then authenticating their own position by a misuse and distortion of her words.

The question is not whether Ellen White presented truth not contained in Scripture—but whether God Himself is trustworthy in the administration of the prophetic gift.

Moore hits the nail squarely. His incisive description of Ford’s method matches—exactly—the work of Kevin Ferris just now published in the Adventist Review. Unfortunately, space does not allow a fuller discussion of Moore’s work in his 1979 book. But it is enough to state that Moore was here first, saw all this long ago, and brought the pieces together with clarity. We recommend his book to you and urge you to examine more closely its insights than we have had space to do here.

Here then is the point. Ford said he agreed with the Glacier View consensus statement. So what? How can this man be trusted? There is gross misuse of sources in Ford’s work. Whatever he agrees with is immaterial after such a demonstration. The brethren were right not to trust him at that point. It was time to part ways, which the Church did. But the offices at the Review seem to need a more thorough cleaning than they heretofore have had.

Summing Up: Last Generation Wimp-Out or Last Generation Theology?

At the end of the day, the question is, Will we permit Jesus to cleanse His temple? Will our lives testify to anything at all? Will the sanctuary be cleansed, or will Satan’s charges against God stand? “Satan has declared that man can not keep the law. I [Jesus] will show that his statement is false; that man can keep the law. I have come to remove deception from the minds of men, to make plain that which Satan is trying to make obscure.”⁴¹ As our Intercessor pleads for us, as He removes sin from His sanctuary, He removes sin from His people. He is making an atonement. He aims at time’s end to crush Satan under our feet (Romans 16:20) as Christ in us (Colossians 1:27). He points us out, as He did Job, and He says, “Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 14:12).

Indeed, it is the above, or it is an evangelical meltdown, where Adventists try to fit into the mold of mainstreamed religion, to be accepted among those who have an entirely different view of the judgment. At this time then, it is most alarming to see our own denominational publication, the Adventist Review, working in the same vein as the varied patch of anti-Adventist internet attack websites, and undermining our denomination in its teaching of the judgment.

God will require it at their hands.

Endnotes

Kevin Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment,” Adventist Review, June 9, 2005.
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 424.
See Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, Revised Year 2000 16th Ed., pp. 14, 15.
Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, May 25, 1905; Evangelism p. 224.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment.”
Ibid.
Ellen G. White, This Day With God, p. 244.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment.”
Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 147.
________, Review and Herald, October 25, 1881; Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 147).
________, Gospel Herald, September 1, 1900.
________, Review and Herald, April 12, 1898.
________, Southern Watchman, September 4, 1902.
________, Acts of the Apostles, p. 29.
________, The Great Controversy, p. 352.
Ibid., pp. 419, 420.
Ibid., pp. 421, 422.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment.”
Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, pp. 661-692. In a forthcoming article titled “Slanting the Atonement,” I will show how these references were cherry-picked and skewed to misrepresent Mrs. White’s doctrine of the atonement. Alas, this project (a complete review of QOD Appendix C) is a substantial one and has not been completed.
Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, p. 31.
Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 254.
________, The Great Controversy, p. 480.
________, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 370.
1872 Fundamental beliefs. http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/1872fb.php.
1931 Fundamental Beliefs. http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/1931fb.php.
Questions on Doctrine, pp. 354, 355.
For a more detailed discussion of QOD and its ramifications, see my “Walter Martin’s Trump Card.
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-qod-atonement.php3.”
See Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, Revised Year 2000 16th Ed., p. 17.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment.”
White, The Great Controversy, p. 483.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment.”
Ibid.
Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 145.
________, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 314.
________, The Desire of Ages, p. 668.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment.”
White, The Great Controversy, p. 597.
Ferris, “What We Really Believe About the Judgment.”
Ferris, Letter to the Church President Regarding Desmond Ford. Published online at
http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive/2000/julaug2000/departments/letters.shtml,
Accessed June 10, 9:25 a.m. PDT.
See our article,
Desmond Ford Redux. http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-dfx.php3.
Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, January 25, 1905.
See A. Leroy Moore’s recollection of Ford’s methods of presentation and persuasion at the end of this document, in Appendix A.
A Leroy Moore, The Theology Crisis, pp. 436-438.

Appendix A: The Desmond Ford Phenomenon

The following excerpts are from a post by author of the 1979 book, The Theology Crisis, in which A. Leroy Moore countered the then popular views of Desmond Ford. Moore’s 1979 work is required reading for anyone who wants to understand Seventh-day Adventist theology. The entire post was much longer, and in it Moore also reiterated his endeavors to remain as unbiased as possible in the consideration of Ford’s views, as well as the congenial nature of his interactions with Ford. Our interest in reproducing the following excerpts from Moore’s 2004 post was to center on his recollection of Ford’s manner, public presentation, debating tactics, use of sources, and theological concepts. The source of these excerpts was Moore’s 2004 post occurring on sdanet.org Friday, August 6, 2004:

In every [Sabbath school] class Des focused exclusively upon the issues of righteousness by faith. That the same few principles were featured each time further simplified issues. I could not help but note the contrast between Des’s constant use of Ellen White’s quotes in the class and in his printed papers, etc., and his response to quotes brought up in class or that I later referred to, which did not support his position.

I don’t recall any more authoritative use of Ellen White quotes. Over and over Des made the same statement in the same way. Indeed, the visual images and audio tones, which were always precisely the same, are indelibly impressed upon my mind.

His quotes were always by memory and always preceded by the statement in measured tones: ‘Ellen White says’! The rhythm and bodily movements never varied. With each of the three words his right fore-arm began about 45 degrees above the horizontal and came down to the horizontal plane with a bounce on each word and with the pointing finger directed at the class. With each word the right foot moved forward several inches, so that it extended about 18" on the final word. While each word was with emphasis, the last word, ‘says,’ could hardly be expressed with a greater sense of authority…. But certain key claims were contrary to the teaching of the one he used so authoritatively…. From time to time someone got the courage to question, often referring to a Bible or spirit of prophecy quote that did not support his teaching.

Invariably, Des would instantly transform the question into one he could demolish and challenged the questioner in a response that did not fit the question but was closely enough related to it that most class members seemed unaware that he had changed the statement and implied that which was not intended, thus dodging and directing attention away from the issue raised.

Since Des held the floor, no one could effectively respond; for he would not be given the opportunity. Meanwhile, most of the class were moving along with him, so as to seem to think he had answers for every question. I could only presume that at least a few must have realized that he never even attempted to answer the question, but restructured it so as to make a sure ‘kill.’

Yet, Des was obviously not merely a master of debate techniques; he was a very congenial and charismatic teacher whose class was full every Sabbath. And his Australian accent seemed to be a novel feature that enhanced his popularity.…

[Later, while Moore was conducting personal interviews with Desmond Ford] I was very careful in suggesting spirit of prophecy statements that raised questions re: his interpretation of those he used. Never once did Des attempt a reply to the substance. But, as regular as were his expressions in the class, just so regular and predictable were his responses to me.

But these responses were very different from his class responses. Always in the same words and with the same emphasis he would say: ‘We must remember that Ellen White was not a theologian and her messages cannot be used with theological authority.’ He would then inevitably remind me that her counsel is pastoral not theological. I did not consider it wise to remind him that I was responding to his authoritative use.

Thus, when Des was presenting, Ellen White seemed to have ultimate authority. But any quote that did not fit his theology had no theological authority, was intended only as non-authoritative, pastoral guidance.

….For virtually every issue on which I saw violation of Ellen White’s position he also contradicted himself and in one way or another declared himself in agreement with her…. My feelings were often mixed. For again and again in examining his sources, which on the surface appeared to provide a strong case, I found that Des had seriously misrepresented them. GCO

© 2005 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick is an ordained minister of the gospel. Since 1994 he has served in the American Southwest as pastor to several churches. He received his Batchelor of Arts in Religion from Southern Adventist University in 1994 and a Master of Divinity from Andrews University in 1999 with specialization in Adventist Studies. While in Michigan he was employed by the General Conference at the White Estate Berrien Springs branch office. Each year he fills speaking engagements in North America and sometimes overseas. Pr. Kirkpatrick has been involved in youth ministry including the General Youth Conference and other initiatives. He is author of the 2003 book Real Grace for Real People and 2005’s Cleanse and Close: Last Generation Theology in 14 Points. As a Seventh-day Adventist minister, he pioneered internet ministry, launching GreatControversy.org in 1997. He also serves as Pastor of the Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists, located near Loma Linda, California. Larry is married to Pamela. The couple presently live in Highland, California along with their children, Etienne and Melinda, and are actively involved in foster parenting.