Talk:Desmond Ford/Archive 1

Former SDA?

While this may well be true (I don't know his official membership status), the article is included in that category. For that to be proper, clear proof should be mentioned (and referenced) in the article. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate suggestions as to where I could find this information. I know a lot of verbal history and information, but I don't think I could lay my hands on any reputable reference that indicates either way. -Fermion 07:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You could send him an email. You need to get two pieces of info: (1) "Are you presently a registered member of the SDA church?" ; (2) Get official confirmation (if his answer is affirmative) from church sources by writing to the local SDA conference office where he lives. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 11:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He is, to my knowledge, is not a member of the local conference in which he resides. That was the purpose of the document that Colin cites below. The Avondale College church was seeking to gain a membership for him. I am of the understanding that Dr Ford contacted a number of members of Avondale College and assured them that while the sentiment was nice, he had no desire for membership. In that view then, officially he his not a member. I still don't see how you could reference it as it is possible he is still on the books at PUC! -Fermion 02:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

At a talk in 2003 he said that when he left America for Australia he didn't try and get his membership transferred, but asked them to remove it from the books as he would not be able to be an active member, due to living in a different country. Clank.r 04:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

At least in 2002, he wasn't a member.[1] I suggest that we leave in the category and the comment until a reference can be found, unless anyone seriously doubts the truth of it. You could also search Des' own websites, which is perfectly acceptable as a Wikipedia citation, I believe. Colin MacLaurin 02:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

An 1996 Adventist Today article by Raymond Cottrell says "Dr. Ford—is still a member of the church".[2] Colin MacLaurin 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Australasian Conference: "That with deep regret we withdraw Doctor Desmond Ford's ministerial credentials, noting that this does not annul his ordination, and... recommend to the Avondale College Board that he be relieved of his responsibilities as a minister and teacher."[3] Colin MacLaurin 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

membership

I may be wrong, but I was under the strong impression that Ford was disfellowshipped at that meeting. If there is any doubt, we should not call him an Adventist and/or should mention the doubt or the idea that he was disfellowshipped (without necessarily confirming it). Calling him an Adventist if we don't know that he is one is just as bad as the other way around. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused: which meeting? Fermion 06:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ford remained a Adventist Church member at Pacific Union College Church until his return to Australia. At that time he voluntarily resigned his church membership.Thielogian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Let's discuss which sources are the best available.

One reference currently used is bibleprophecy.net. The site does not say who wrote the articles, making it an extremely questionable source. Colin MacLaurin 07:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a leading source, but I was interested to note that the Standish brothers (historic Adventists) wrote very highly of their impressions of Ford while at Avondale College together. I'm sure they disapprove strongly of his later path, but I think their comments are worth including. Colin MacLaurin 06:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed this from the Standish brothers article, as it is not that relevant – "They encountered Desmond Ford, who in 1950 was in his final year of study, and while they would later be highly critical of his teachings, at college they "respected him very highly indeed. He was an able speaker even at that time and possessed a prodigious knowledge of the scriptures. His godly character was in evidence at that time..."" Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a short testimony: I attended Pacific Union College 1976 through 1981, majoring Theology with Pastoral Emphasis. I took every class I could from Dr. Desmond Ford, possibly 6 or 8. He was/is an incredible teacher. I think he is a great man. He really opened my eyes to Christianity. I was at the center of these events. Jeff Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.107.157.253 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Manuscript pre Glacier View

The sources differ slightly regarding Ford's manuscript. Different titles are given. Are these sources contradictory, or were there different versions of the manuscript produced? Let's fix this. Colin MacLaurin 18:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominated Theological Changes?

"He dominated theological changes in Australia and New Zealand during the 60s and 70s." In theology in general, or in the SDA movement? If only the latter then this sentence needs changing as it occurs before any mention of SDA.--PeterR (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the latter. I have improved the lead a little. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Milton Hook's biography

I have recently twice reverted material strongly in favour of Milton Hook's biography of Ford. Please read the fundamental Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view and verifiability. The submission contradicted both. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Desmond Ford

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Desmond Ford's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Cottrell":

• From Investigative judgment: "The 'Sanctuary Doctrine' – Asset or Liability?" by Raymond Cottrell. This paper was presented publicly to groups at least twice – in 2001 Cottrell presented it to the 2nd Jesus Institute Forum (website), and 2002 Larry Christoffel, associate pastor of the Campus Hill Church of Seventh-day Adventists in Loma Linda, California delivered it to the San Diego Adventist Forum; Cottrell was present and both fielded questions. Some footnotes are missing in the link provided. Adventist Today hosts a version in 14 parts – see parts 12 and 13 for the missing footnotes
• From Progressive Adventism: The "Sanctuary Doctrine" - Asset or Liability? by Raymond Cottrell
• From Biblical Research Institute: "The 'Sanctuary Doctrine' – Asset or Liability?" by Raymond Cottrell, presented publicly in 2001 and 2002
• From Robert Brinsmead: Cottrell, Raymond (May 1999). "Whither, Robert D. Brinsmead?". Adventist Today. 7 (3). Loma Linda, CA: Adventist Today Foundation. ISSN 1079-5499. Retrieved 2007-11-04.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thank-you for your assistance AnomieBOT. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nature of Christ, fallen physical nature and unfallen spiritual nature, Ellen White in QoD

In Appendix B of QoD, Ellen White's quotes on the nature of Christ are divided into several topics including the following two. The section on Sinless nature is talking about that nature of man by which one makes decisions for righteousness or sin, which is the functioning of the mind. The section on liabilities is talking about the physical nature of man as affected by sin over the millennia. To be sure the brain, as a physical entity is also affected by sin, yet Jesus' mind was sinless anyway.

III. Took Sinless Human Nature pp. 650-652Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure.—The Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898.When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. . . . Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure.—The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

Christ came to the earth, taking humanity, and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement.--The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898. {7ABC 446.3} Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure.--The Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898. (447) {7ABC 446.4} In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man. In heaven was heard the voice, "The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord."--The Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901. {7ABC 447.1} When Christ bowed His head and died, He bore the pillars of Satan's kingdom with Him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour's Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power.--The Youth's Instructor, April 25, 1901. {7ABC 447.2}

In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. . . . We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. {7ABC 447.3}

Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.--Ibid., p. 1128. (448) {7ABC 447.4}

The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. . . . Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure.--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. {7ABC 448.1}

Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God. . . . Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129. {7ABC 448.2} What opposites meet and are revealed in the person of Christ! The mighty God, yet a helpless child! The Creator of all the world, yet, in a world of His creating, often hungry and weary, and without a place to lay His head! The Son of man, yet infinitely higher than the angels! Equal with the Father, yet His divinity clothed with humanity, standing at the head of the fallen race, that human beings might be placed on vantage-ground! Possessing eternal riches, yet living the life of a poor man! One with the Father in dignity and power, yet in His humanity tempted in all points like as we are tempted! In the very moment of His dying agony on the cross, a Conqueror, answering the request of the repentant sinner to be remembered by Him when He came into His kingdom.--The Signs of the Times, April 26, 1905. (449) {7ABC 448.3}

IV. Assumed Liabilities of Human Nature pp. 653-654Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. "As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same." He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent.—The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.—The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. —The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

VII. Perfect Sinlessness of Christ's Human Nature

We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ. Our faith must be an intelligent faith, looking unto Jesus in perfect confidence, in full and entire faith in the atoning sacrifice. This is essential that the soul may not be enshrouded in darkness. This holy substitute is able to save to the uttermost; for He presented to the wondering universe perfect and complete humility in His human character, and perfect obedience to all the requirements of God.--The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898. {7ABC 454.3} With His human arm, Christ encircled the race, while with His divine arm, He grasped the throne of the Infinite, uniting finite man with the infinite God. He bridged the gulf that sin had made, and connected earth with heaven. In His human nature He maintained the purity of His divine character.--The Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898. {7ABC 454.4} He was unsullied with corruption, a stranger to sin; yet He prayed, and that often with strong crying and tears. He prayed for His disciples and for Himself, thus identifying Himself with our needs, our weaknesses, and our failings, which are so common with humanity. He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like infirmities, tempted in all points like as we are. Jesus endured agony which required help and support from His Father.-- Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 508. {7ABC 454.5} He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil. He endured struggles and torture of soul in a world of sin. His humanity made prayer a necessity and privilege. He required all the stronger divine support and comfort which His Father was ready to impart to Him, to Him who had, for the benefit of man, left the joys of heaven and chosen His home in a cold and thankless world.--Ibid., p. 202. {7ABC 455.1} His doctrine dropped as the rain; His speech distilled as the dew. In the character of Christ was blended such majesty as God had never before displayed to fallen man, and such meekness as man had never developed. Never before had there walked among men one so noble, so pure, so benevolent, so conscious of His godlike nature; yet so simple, so full of plans and purposes to do good to humanity. While abhorring sin, He wept with compassion over the sinner. He pleased not Himself. The majesty of heaven clothed Himself with the humility of a child. This is the character of Christ.--Ibid., vol. 5, p. 422. {7ABC 455.2} The life of Jesus was a life in harmony with God. While He was a child, He thought and spoke as a child; but no trace of sin marred the image of God within Him. Yet He was not exempt from temptation. . . . Jesus was placed where His character would be tested. It was necessary for Him to be constantly on guard in order to preserve His purity. He was subject to all the conflicts which we have to meet, that He might be an example to us in childhood, youth, and manhood.--The Desire of Ages, p. 71. {7ABC 455.3} In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." . . . We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.--The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898.

(456) {7ABC 455.4} Christ alone could open the way, by making an offering equal to the demands of the divine law. He was perfect, and undefiled by sin. He was without spot or blemish. The extent of the terrible consequences of sin could never have been known, had not the remedy provided been of infinite value. The salvation of fallen man was procured at such an immense cost that angels marveled, and could not fully comprehend the divine mystery that the Majesty of Heaven, equal with God, should die for the rebellious race.--The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, pp. 11, 12. {7ABC 456.1} Thus it is with the leprosy of sin,--deep-rooted, deadly, and impossible to be cleansed by human power. "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores." Isa. 1:5, 6. But Jesus, coming to dwell in humanity, receives no pollution. His presence has healing virtue for the sinner.--The Desire of Ages, p. 266. {7ABC 456.2} Jesus looked for a moment upon the scene,--the trembling victim in her shame, the hard-faced dignitaries, devoid of even human pity. His spirit of stainless purity shrank from the spectacle. Well He knew for what purpose this case had been brought to Him. He read the heart, and knew the character and life history of everyone in His presence. . . . The accusers had been defeated. Now, their robe of pretended holiness torn from them, they stood, guilty and condemned, in the presence of Infinite Purity.--Ibid., p. 461. {7ABC 456.3}

From Appendix B :Human Nature does not equal Sinless Human Nature Two headings of two different topics.Human Nature = Christ took human nature (Ellen) = flesh and blood (Ellen)Sinless Human Nature = He did not take the sinfulness of man = Jesus second Adam = The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being = Jesus Christ ... took upon Himself {Adam's sinless] human nature = Jesus' spiritual nature.Therefore: Human Nature = Flesh and Blood, Sinless Human Nature = Jesus' Spiritual Nature. (our spiritual nature is not sinless)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Desmond Ford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717021130/http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/papers/kir-sorl.html to http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/papers/kir-sorl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)