Yes, thanks, I've read both books, have hard copies of each and...I've got the two book series on his Adventist career by the Standish twins: a very fair documentary, "The Gathering Storm; The Storm Bursts," I think are the titles. As for hearing him, I'm not old enough to have been that drawn, I'm afraid - though absence from Adventism from November '79 due to major loss in the family hid me from his influence into my teens,...till 23, by which time I'd found the 3 Angels' Message amplified by Waggoner & Jones...I've only heard an audio recording of a presentation he made in the 70's(?) to the Andrews seminary: a phenomenal speaker & debater!! No wonder his first doctorate was in rhetoric!...

His doctorate on Daniel departed root & branch from Adventist hermeneutics: historicism, pursuing preterism & futurism...no wonder he was sacked for such differences. His book, incidentally, wasn't as different to Adventism as his dissertation, being tailored for Adventist scholarly taste, to win favour: what a shock 1979 must have been!! I'm sorry: the man is as theologically devious as the worst of politicians; he should have gone into politics instead.

His justification only gospel teaching, rightly provoked objection from among observant senior Aussie ministers & evangelists: it was equally grounds for sacking him, but that would have been just out & out politically incorrect in front of 'friendly' Evangelicals; seems we weren't prepared for that. Have we yet fully drawn the consequences of allowing that confusion in our midst? I think not.

Evangelical theology in our midst, indeed officially held, once recognised for what it is, inspires a return to true Adventism: knowing what the others think helps clarify one's own position.

Just how much of his teachings do you agree with if you disagree with the rest?

I was at Andrews during this time.

My late father was doing theology at Helderberg during that time, too: Heppenstall was lecturing in retirement there at that time; my Dad didn't enter the ministry, though. How providdntial that my favourite is Douglass instead, given my father's teachers...! Read the better stuff first, eh?

How did you fare at Andrews in themidst of that?

But what is sacred about Adventist hermeneutics?

Ford found flaws in our systematic theology. Not that he came up with the right answers, but the fact that he pointed out the flaws is what got him canned.

If you were to look at the way that Jesus applied prophecy to Himself and compared Jesus’ methods to Adventist hermeneutics you would call Him a false prophet and boot Him out of the church.

Although systematic theology and Biblical context are good study tools one can only know the truth if one knows God intimately. Most theology classes teach that truth can be extracted by good scholarship! Funny how Jesus bypassed the scholars and chose simple fishermen to educate with the gospel.

Historicism has a few less flaws as preterism and futurism. My way of interpreting prophecy is not based on a system of scholarship, but on a system of authority. The NT gives us a list of authority in order:

1) Jesus has all power and authority. He is the truth and the light! The word made flesh! (The Gospels)
2) The Holy Spirit is second.
3) Then the Apostles (Epistles)
4) Then the Prophets (Old Testament)
5) Elders
6) Spiritual gifts in order with tongues being last.

scott

Would appear there are various views of what got him canned. Certainly he challenged our theology, so to have two applications or not to have two applications, that is the question: I differ with both his arguments and the official church take on "the daily", preferring the pioneers' position, thus solving that debate over Jerusalem.

Do you reckon 1844 is flawed theology/prophecy? - for that was the main bone of contention he was sacked over.

As for Jesus' methods, his Spirit inspired the written word, he fulfilled the written word as he was led by his Father's Spirit: today we have the testimony of Jesus, again written down; something Dr Ford didn't abide. You don't think his salvation teaching is bad?

Um, that's that scale of inspirational authority Graeme Bradford endorses, too, isn't it. So, you like that line of thinking, with eg. the Old Testament prophets answering to the New Testament Epistles? - there is no equal, "all Scripture" equally inspired, inspiration, or is this just for prophecy?

Ford not only challenged our theology, but changed our salvation view from an Adventist historical perspective to more of a Reformation theology thus bringing our theology closer to the Evangelical’s view when it comes to justification and sanctification. Whereas our historical view saw justification as something God did inside the believer Reformation theology saw justification as something God did totally outside the believer. In the historical view justification and sanctification had little differences. Justification is simply the initiation of the process of sanctification.

I personally hold closer to Ford’s view on justification than I do historic Adventist because in the historic view Christ did nothing corporately. I believe that Jesus changed the status of the whole world from Adam to the last man. He changed our default from lost to saved. The human nature is so depraved and selfish that all men are naturally lost to God. Jesus imputed objective evidence of the love of God into the equation and now humanity has to resist God with a determined perverse will or God will capture their hearts. He put enmity between Satan and humanity which would not exist except for His intervention in the life and death of Jesus.

As far as 1844 I’ll let the scholars debate the accuracy of the date or whether or not our pioneers used hermeneutical sound practices to come up with the date. I believe there is a judgment and that the SDA movement was raised up to proclaim that judgment. I don’t believe that the accuracy of the date proves the validity of our existence. Just the fact that the Millerites got the event wrong should show us that. What gives us validity is the preaching of the true gospel.

I believe that the 3 angel’s messages are the prophetic story of that judgment. And I believe in the SOP although I don’t believe in the infallibility of any of the prophets like most fundamental Christians do.

scott

Ok. Boy, so long ago! So young, with all body parts functioning.

I was really into music at this time, so was practicing the piano 4 or 5 hours a day. I was a Religion major, a reader of Dr. Waterhouse (don't know if you're familiar with him) and did an honors project on Heb. 10, which was to some extent I guess you could say inspired by the Ford stuff. I didn't have any ties whatsoever to the Seminary. I wasn't really following the Ford stuff too closely. It's hard to remember details.

I haven't heard of Graeme Bradford, but I actually got the idea from some sermons I listened to back in the early 90s from an English preacher named Malcolm Smith. He did a series called "The Church in the Old Testament" where He shows that the Christian church was God's eternal purpose from the beginning.

The actual list I made myself by reading what the NT teaches. This list comes from the NT, not from me or anyone else. Jesus taught that He had authority over the OT and the NT writers saw the OT as looking through shadows and type, but the truth of God not understood until Jesus came. Basically the NT teaches that salvation is understood through Christ alone and without Him we would be groping in the darkness.

In my mind inspiration is inspiration and of course equally inspired. What I question is the timely relevance of the inspiration. What good would it do me to preach “There’s a flood coming! Get on the boat or drown”? Noah’s message had a context in time, but to say his message is relevant for today would be a little stretch of the imagination. Thus I’m not questioning the value of inspiration, but the timeliness of it. Are we not called to be preachers of present truth? Are we not commissioned to keep up with God? This is where the whole concept of “Historic Adventism” falls apart. At what point in time did we have all the truth?

scott

All Scripture is inspired, but some parts are clearer than others. For example, the life and teaching of Christ is clearer than anything else.

Also those who came after had the benefit of those who went before. In particular, the NT writers not only had all of the books of the OT, they also, most of them, personally knew Jesus Christ as He was here with us in the flesh.

That being said, the Bible is a simply amazing book, all the way through. The working of the Spirit of God is evident throughout.

Agreed...common sense, actually, after reading the Book of Acts, but the Israelites w e r e supposed to reach out from their spot in the middle of the known world. Oh, well.


Yes, the greatest revelation of God is in Christ, but his revelation to Abraham and David, to name just two, is indeed just as good. Romans quotes from Habakuk "the righteous shall live by faith"; actually Habakuk says "those who by faith are righteous shall live".


That relevant inspiration you refer to is the inspired message itself, like Noah's message you quoted. That doesn't relegate any Bible writer to another, and messages for any time are temporal expressions of eternal truth. Present truth prophets are there also, indeed.

As for "historic Adventism", the present truth for our time is changed since the 19th century? I think not, for the message is that of the Three Angels. Did Luther discover that message with his reformation? No, that message is beyond even Methodism. Our gospel understanding and message is flavoured by our eschatology: our beliefs were originally focussed by our study of the end in prophecy.

The critique of historical Adventist literature by Geoffrey Paxton's The Shaking of Adventism (online here http://tinyurl.com/5w3d4d) shows a clear message, which is still relevant if not the heart of our beliefs even today. So-called historic Adventism is missing the heart of Jones & Waggoner's message from God, as does the church generally - given its avoidance of the topic and presentation of the gospel generally.

I've spotted a good contrasting study by Eric Webster of South Africa, posted here http://sdanet.org/atissue/books/webster/index.htm, of our leading thinkers of the 20th century: Edward Heppenstall and Herbert Douglass. It's the "3 Saient Points" on Heppenstall and "Overview" of Douglass' theology that I'm recommending for reading. I'm with Douglass.