APOSTASY IN PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION (Excerpt from WWN1(85)
THE ODYSSEY OF APOSTASY WITHIN THE ADVENTIST COMMUNITY HAS NOT ONLY
INCLUDED DEVIATIONS IN HISTORICAL THEOLOGICAL CONCEPTS, BUT ALSO
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY ARE BEING
ALTERED- Theological compromise surfaced in the book Questions on
Doctrine - as a result of the Seventh-day Adventist-Evangelical
Conferences in 1955-1956. In the documents now available, it is
established that the Church's conferees compromised the faith given in
trust to the Adventist Church in the areas of the atonement and the
incarnation. It was stated to Barnhouse and Martin by these men "that
they do not believe, as some of their earlier teachers taught, that
Jesus' atoning work was not completed on Calvary but instead that He is
carrying on a second ministering work since 1844." The idea "was totally
repudiated," according to Barnhouse and Martin. These Evangelicals
perceived that the Adventists now "believe that since His ascension
Christ has been ministering the benefits of the atonement which He
completed on Calvary." (Eternity, September, 1956) This assessment of
what the Adventist leaders said, has never been denied. As for the
teaching on the Incarnation, the book - Questions on Doctrine -
specifically stated - "Although born in the flesh, [Jesus] was
nevertheless God, and was exempt from the inherited passions and
pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam." (p. 383,
emphasis supplied)
What is not generally known is that the book also contained a section -
'Questions on Prophecy." In this section, the Adventist conferees were
solid on the basic principles of prophetic interpretation which underlie
Reformation and Adventist understanding of the books of Daniel and
Revelation. They showed clearly that Antiochus Epiphanes could not be
"the little horn" of Daniel 8. They forcibly set forth the connection
between Chapters 8 & 9 of Daniel. The year for a day concept as applied
to the time prophecies was ably defended. One could find little, if any,
to question in the defense, as found in the book, of our historic
understanding of the principles of prophetic interpretation, or the
prophecies discussed in the section.
However, when "the chickens" of the theological apostasy 'came home to
roost" in Ford's attack on the sanctuary teaching, he also brought into
the open a deviate concept by which the prophecies of God's word were to
be interpreted. When given a leave to prepare a defense of his
allegations, he produced a large manuscript, which was later published
under the title - Daniel 8:14; The Day of Atonement, and the
Investigative Judgment.
Page 2 In this manuscript, Ford defined what he meant by his
use of the "apotelesmatic principle." He wrote - "The apotelesmatic
principle is a convenient term for referring to the concept that a
particular prophecy in outline or as regards a dominant feature may have
more than one application in time." (p. 302) Note, and keep in mind the
phrase - "more than one application in time." What Ford is saying is
simply that a given prophecy, for example, "the little horn" of Daniel 8
could have been fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B.C., and again
this same prophecy could find another application in New
Testament times in the Papacy, and again it could apply to a future
antichrist to appear near the end of time. He even suggests that
"Seventh-day Adventists are no strangers to the apotelesmatic principle
though the term is not common in their literature and only rarely has it
been used in connection with the prophecies of Daniel." (p. 303) Ford is
suggesting that our use of the term - "dual application" - is synonymous
with what he calls "the apotelesmatic principle." We freely admit that some prophecies do have a "dual
application" but they are general in nature. For example, Jesus told His
disciples on the Mount of Olives that "nation shall arise against
nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and great earthquakes shall be in
divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and
great signs shall there be from heaven." (Luke 21:10-11) This prophecy
of Jesus could have multiple applications; but it is a general prophecy.
The same night Jesus also informed the disciples that Jerusalem would be
"compassed with armies." By this they would "then
know that the desolation thereof was nigh." (21:20) This is a specific
prophecy, and finds only one fulfillment in all history. If it were to
have a multiple application, how then would the ones for whom the
prophecy was given, know when to do what Jesus instructed them to do
when the event occurred? Prior to the time of his leave from Pacific Union
College, Ford had written a commentary on the book of Daniel which was
published by the now closed Southern Publishing Association. This book -
Daniel, with a foreword by F. F. Bruce of the University
of Manchester, England - contains a chapter on "Contemporary Systems of
Interpretation." Ford defines four systems. One, the Preteristic, views
all the prophecies as having been fulfilled prior to, or soon after the
beginnings of the Christian era. It was developed by the Jesuit Alcazar
as part of the Catholic Counter Reformation. The second, Futuristic,
developed also by a Jesuit, Ribera, from the writings of the Church
Fathers, sought to project most, if not all prophecy as being fulfilled
at some distant date beyond "the noon day of the Papacy." This, too, was
a part of the Counter Reformation of the Roman Catholic Church. This
view - the Futuristic - has become basic in apostate Protestantism. The
other major system is known as Historicism which teaches that history is
but the response to the voice of prophecy. This system was used during
the great Protestant Reformation, and is the basis for the understanding
of prophecy in the Advent Movement. Ford's comments on three of these major systems of
interpretation are most revealing. He wrote: "It must be said that
each of the systems is right in what it affirms and wrong in what it
denies." (p. 68, emphasis his) After explaining the reason for his
emphasis, he concludes - "If the apotelesmatic principle were to be
widely understood, some differences between the systems would be
automatically resolved." (p. 69)
This is simply suggesting that by the adoption of his so-called
"principle" there could be worked out a compromise between Jesuitical
interpretations of prophecy and the historical understanding applied to
the prophecies during the Protestant Reformation. The bottom line is an
attempt to adulterate the historic Advent faith which was built upon the
prophecies of God's word by which the events of history were seen as the
unfolding of the scroll of prophecy. |