A recent church publication advertised the book -The End. What caught my eye in the advertisement was the fact this book which is subtitled as the "unique voice of Adventists about the return of Jesus" would explain among other objectives "how to relate the modern nation of Israel to last-day prophecy." Its author, Dr. Herbert Douglass, a former associate editor of the Adventist Review, now serves as one of the book editors at the Pacific Press. During the 1974 North American Division Bible Conferences, Dr. Douglass presented a paper in a similar vein - "The Unique Contribution of Adventist Eschatology." In this conference paper, he had specifically stated - "Adventists do not see theological importance in the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948 or the annexation of Old Jerusalem in 1967." (p. 6) I purchased the new book by Douglass, hoping that in the intervening years, and from further study and experiences, some of the "blind spots" in his eschatology would have been removed. In this hope I was to be sadly disappointed.

In this book, Douglass discusses various aspects of what Jesus had to say about the end in Matthew 24 and 25. His special emphasis from these chapters is on the parables Jesus told in regard to the end. In commenting on the "faithful and wise servant," he writes:

When probation closes, where local conditions permit, he will be in the field or at the mill fulfilling his earthly responsibilities (Matt. 24:40, 41). The X-ray technician will be in his lab, the teacher in his classroom, the plumber with his pipes, the physician at the bedside, the student with his books, and the mother changing diapers. Discharging our earthly duties, in ways that reflect the glory of the character of God, is the "faithful and wise" servant's primary task. (p. 95)

The message of Christ in Luke is passed by with but brief comment - "Luke's account of Christ's last day predictions adds certain features, such as the distress of nations at the roaring of the sea and waves, and men's hearts fainting with fear and foreboding regarding world events. Luke 21:25-27'' (p.119) Luke's presentation does add certain features not found in Matthew or Mark, but these Douglass chooses to ignore, even though this book is to help explain "how to relate the modern nation of Israel to last-day prophecy." It is in Luke 21 that we have the specific relating of Jerusalem to last day events. Surely Douglass is aware of what the servant of the Lord wrote on this point. She stated:

In the twenty-first chapter of Luke Christ foretold what was to come

Page 2

upon Jerusalem, and with it He connected the scenes which were to take place in the history of this world just prior to the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Counsels to Writers and Editors, pp. 23-24)

Here is an incredible thing. Douglass is an editor and a writer. He professes great veneration for the writings of Ellen G. White. In this present book, over fifty percent of the 240 plus footnote references are to her writings. Yet in this work written about "the unique voice of Adventists about the return of Jesus," and one that has been billed as an explanation of "how to relate the modern nation of Israel to last-day prophecy," this reference from a book compiled for editors and writers is passed over. Let us examine it once again.

It is remarkable that the servant of the Lord did not say - "In Matthew 24, in Mark 13, and in Luke 21" - No, - she singled out only Luke 21, and declared the events related to Jerusalem as cited in Luke would be connected with the very final scenes of this world's history. And the only event in Luke, not found in either Matthew or Mark, concerning Jerusalem is that "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles [nations] be fulfilled." (Luke 21:24) No rationalization, quibbling, or introduction of the charge of "futurism" can alter the fact that in 1967 this prophecy was fulfilled. The evidence is too overwhelming to deny. Thus for Adventist editors and writers to declare that Adventists "do not see theological importance" in this event is to bury their own heads in the sand, and to seek to have the laity to do the same.

A section of the book -The End- is devoted to the "Transition from Jewish Nation to Christian Church." (pp. 62-64) It shows that the Church superceded the nation of Israel in the plans and purposes of God as His special people. This is true and valid. The nation of Israel is no longer the chosen nation under God, nor Jerusalem, the city of the Great King. Nor will it ever be again! But Jesus Himself gave a sign concerning the city which was to take place after it was no longer the place of the Divine Presence, which if the Christians had not heeded would have caused them to have perished in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The early Church could have taken the same line of reasoning as used by Douglass. They could have said - "Since the nation of Israel is no longer the nation of God, nor the city, the place of His presence, we see no significance in anything that will take place in the history of the city. Events in the history of Jerusalem have no prophetic importance to us." What would have happened in AD 66 had the early Church assumed such a theological posture?

While it is true that the sacred temple was devoid of the Divine Presence following the crucifixion of Jesus, and the "times of the Jewish church" were fulfilled in 34 AD, and Jerusalem desolated in 70 AD, yet the Bible teaches clearly and plainly that certain happenings in regard to Jerusalem - historical in nature - do have significance for the people of God. This is reinforced by the statement from the pen of Ellen G. White found in Counsels to Writers and Editors. The first as noted above had to do with the early Christian Church (AD 66-70). The fulfillment of "the times of the Gentiles" or nations (AD 1967) speaks to us, and yet another event in the history of Jerusalem (Daniel 11:45-12:1) will signal the imminent close of all human probation. This latter fact needs further study and explanation.

Page 3

We have recognized "the standing up of Michael" (See Dan. 12:1) as a Biblical phrase for the cessation of the priestly ministry of Jesus, and the beginning of His assumption of Kingly power over the kingdoms of this world. (See Rev. 11:15) But Michael stands up at a specific time, - "at that time." This "time" is when a certain "he" plants "the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain." (Dan. 11:45) This holy mountain is Jerusalem. (Dan. 9:16) Thus by noting carefully the prophecies of Jesus, we can look for a series of events leading up to the close of probation. Jesus Himself directed us to note happenings connected with the history of the once favored city. But if we choose to ignore this, will the prophecy of Daniel have any meaning for us? If we see no significance in the event of 1948, when Israel became a nation - "Coming events cast their shadows before" (DA, p. 636) - or in 1967, when Jerusalem was no longer under the control of the Gentiles, thus fulfilling Luke 21: 24, will we see anything unusual when the "he" of Daniel 11:45 plants the tabernacles of his palace in the glorious holy mountain?

We need to take more than a passing thought to this warning:

Before His crucifixion, the Saviour explained to His disciples that He was to be put to death, and to rise again from the tomb; and angels were present to impress His words on minds and hearts. But the disciples were looking for temporal deliverance from the Roman yoke, and they could not tolerate the thought that He in whom all their hopes centered should suffer an ignominious death. The words which they needed to remember were banished from their minds; and when the time of trial came, it found them unprepared. The death of Jesus as fully destroyed their hopes as if He had not forewarned them. So in the prophecies the future is opened before us as plainly as it was opened to the disciples by the words of Christ. The events connected with the close of probation and the work of preparation for the time of trouble are clearly presented. But multitudes have no more understanding of these important truths than if they had never been revealed. Satan watches to catch away every impression that would make them wise unto salvation, and the time of trouble will find them unprepared. (Great Controversy, p. 594)

What is tragic is that an editor among the professed people of God is doing the work of Satan by seeking to "catch" away any impression that would make the laity wise unto salvation, and leave them thinking that merely continuing in the round of daily occupational pursuits is a satisfactory preparation for the time of trouble and the close of probation. (Reread quotes from The End on page 1, of this thought paper.)

In another section of the book - The End - Douglass seeks to explain his assertion that there is no "prophetic significance" to the role of Israel, or Jerusalem in last-day events, by noting - "The hermeneutical principle of conditional prophecy spares the biblical student from misunderstanding the role of modern Israel in the fulfillment of last-day prophecies." (p. 63) In support of this principle of Biblical interpretation, the author marshalls an impressive array of evidence. In this I fully agree, but does this prove his point? No, for though Israel is no longer the chosen people of God, and the promises made to them were conditional on their obedience to God's covenant with them - which they did not

Page 4

keep - nevertheless, Jesus and as Michael (Dan. 10:21) declared plainly that certain events in the history of this once favored people would be signs of the end, and warnings to God's true people. But Douglass wishes to make an exception to the rule which he seeks to use to mitigate what Jesus said. Quoting that "it should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional," (SM, bk i, p. 67) as "the principle of conditional prophecy" (The End, p. 60), Douglass applies this to all peoples, nations, and churches, except the hierarchy and the corporate body of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. After using this principle to negate any connection between the nation of Israel and the end-time events, he introduces a "correlate to the concept of conditional prophecy" so as to avoid a universal application of this principle. And this is done even in the light of what has been written concerning the acted parable of Christ in cursing the fig tree: - "The warning is for all time. Christ's act in cursing the tree which His own power had created, stands as a warning to all churches [no exceptions given] and to all Christians." (DA, p. 584)

Douglass calls his "correlate to the concept of conditional prophecy" - the "harvest principle." He explains in the simplest of terms that this principle means - "God will wait." (p. 65) And it is true - "God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing." (I Peter 3:20) But it is equally as true that God said "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, ..." (Gen. 6:3) This "correlate" must be balanced against the fact that God is willing to wait. In his book, Douglass has not taken into account this factor even though there is abundant evidence in both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy to indicate that while God has waited "many more years" than was necessary for Him to wait, He will not continue to wait forever for His professed people to get ready.

In Ezekiel 9, God is pictured as having been seated in the midst of the "cherubim." He arises out of His place, and goes to the "threshold of the house" to give directions to the angel with a writer's inkhorn who is standing by the brazen altar. (vers. 2-3) He orders this angel into "the city" to set a mark upon "the foreheads of the men that sigh and cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof." (verse 4) This chapter is but one "vision" of the "visions of God" given to Ezekiel which cover chapters eight through eleven. The whole picture is the portrayal of God acting; He is no longer waiting. God orders the falling of the "latter rain" symbolized as "coals of fire" from off the altar of His presence. (Eze. 10:2;5-7) It is God who meets the "princes of the people" "the men that devise mischief and give wicked counsel" - at the East Gate, and confronts them as to what group constitute the true people of God. (Eze. 10:18-19; 11:1-7, 15) The final picture is that "the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city." (11:23)

This prophecy of Ezekiel is referred to twice in the Spirit of Prophecy in a setting of a time sequence of last day events. Describing not a "global" mission as the final objective as does Douglass in his book (p. 78), the servant of the Lord speaks of "the closing work for the church, in the sealing time of the one hundred and forty-four thousand who are to stand without fault before the throne of God." (3T:266) This closing work is connected with Ezekiel 9, and is described as "the last work." We are told - "Mark this point with care: Those who receive the pure mark of truth, wrought in them by the power of the Holy Ghost, represented by a mark by the man in linen, are those 'that sigh and cry for all the abominations that be done' in the church." (3T:267) Let it be understood that to the church

Page 5

was committed a "global mission," but when God arises from "the cherub, whereupon He was" the emphasis changes to "the closing work for the church" - a need which the hierarchy with its editors and writers are reluctant to admit.

The timing of this change of emphasis is given in another testimony. After quoting from Ezekiel 9:1-6, Ellen G. White writes - "Jesus is about to leave the mercyseat of the heavenly sanctuary, to put on garments of vengeance." (5T: 207-208). While God arises from the "Judgment" and orders a change of emphasis, Jesus remains at the mercy-seat but a little longer. A careful study of 5T: 208 pinpoints the time of the events of Ezekiel 9, with the prophecy of Jesus in Luke 21:24 to which we are encouraged to study in Counsels to Writers and Editors. (pp. 23-24). For the reader, who is desirous of some thoughtful study, I would suggest the following points to be noted. First carefully re-read Ezekiel 9. Ask yourself the question - Are the "nations" of earth the subject of this chapter? Then read page 208 of Volume 5 of the Testimonies for the Church. Observe the paragraph which begins - "With unerring accuracy. . ." What is the subject of this paragraph? Ask yourself - To whom does the "their" refer in the final sentence - "There is no more pleading of mercy in their behalf." Then read carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully, the first sentence in the next paragraph - "The prophet [Ezekiel], looking down the ages, had this time presented before his vision." There is a "time" in God's dealings with the nations, which coincides with His action of taking things into His own hands. He will wait no longer. "The closing work for the church" begins. Ezekiel 9, and the "inspired comments" must be placed into any "computer" which seeks to set before the professed people of God - the End. This has not been done by Douglass.

In discussing "the principle of conditional prophecy" in chapter four of the book - The End - Douglass makes a very interesting observation:  "Although God promised a second chance to Israel after their failure leading up to the Babylonian captivity, He promised no third chance to them after they rejected the apostolic message in the first century." (p. 62) Based on Christ's Object Lessons (pp. 214, 216) the time of the final opportunity for the Jewish nation could be noted as "the witness during the 70th Week of Daniel 9 through Christ and His Apostles which climaxed in the stoning of Stephen in AD 34." It was the "generation of the 70th Week" which determined the fate of the Jewish Church. But this concept of no "third chance" applies with equal force to "spiritual Israel" of today - "God's professed people." They were given one chance in 1888-1901, and a second opportunity was afforded them in the revival of the 1888 Message 1924-1950. The history following 1950 tells all too well what we did with our second chance. It necessitated God arising from "the cherubim, whereupon He was" and ordering "the closing work for the church." He has told us when He did so. We have chosen to ignore this sign. The early Christians did not ignore their sign in AD 66.

While in 1948 the establishment of the State of Israel fulfilled no prophecy, it did foreshadow coming events, both in the history of nations, and in the history of God's professed people. But in 1967, with the control of Jerusalem once more in Jewish hands, prophecy was indeed fulfilled. God spoke, and His "professed people" have refused to hear. Faith - righteousness by faith - comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God. (Rom. 10:17) Truly, this is a "faithless" generation. And sadly - The End - adds to this faithlessness.

Page 6

ONE ORDAINED MINISTER'S REPONSE TO BACCHIOCCHI'S ADVERTISEMENT IN CHRISTIANITY TODAY-- "The thing that really struck me as I read over the comments of the men who are helping Bacchiocchi sell his book was the little paragraph at the bottom.

"When one thinks back some 400 years to the days of Dr. Martin Luther and his break from the great Roman Church, we see a man of learning, a man who had been trained for the priesthood, a man who could identify with the system, however, a man with an open mind. Yet, with all of this, Martin Luther stood for what he believed and became a 'separated brother' from the 'Mother Church.'

"It does seem strange that 400 years later, from the Church that is called to continue the arrested Protestant reformation comes a man who goes back to sit at the feet of those Luther broke away from. But this man is accepted and becomes, according to Christianity Today's advertisement the first 'separated brother' to earn a doctoratus at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. How could it be that a Seventh-day Adventist would return to help heal a wound that cost her so many of her children so many years ago. Luther broke away; Bacchiocchi returns. The sad part, however, is that Bacchiocchi didn't stay in Rome. After receiving the gold medal from Pope Paul VI for his 'academic distinction' he is received with open arms into the very heart of Adventist education.

"All one has to do is read the comments by the men in Christianity Today, Nov. 16, 1979, p. 44, and you will know that the book could not teach the unique doctrine of the Sabbath day as taught and understood by the early leaders of the SDA Church, for God's message is not a smooth or acceptable message for most."

Excerpts from a letter received here at the office, along with the ''ad'' which appears below:

A BEST SELLER!    FIVE REPRINTS ALREADY!

From Sabbath to Sunday - A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity -- by Samuele Bacchiocchi

A new look at the relevance of the Sabbath rest and worship for the present restless life, in the light of its Biblical basis and historical genesis.

COMMENTS ON THE BOOK

--- "A most impressive, helpful work of first rank scholarship..."

Vernon C Grounds, President, Denver Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary.

--- "A major work of serious scholarship ...."

Ronald Barcley Allen, Professor, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary.

--- "A most creative contribution..."

Norman Vincent Peale

--- "It is a thorough and painstaking peace of research..."

Bruce M. Metzger, Professor, Princeton Theological Seminary.

--- "A remarkable ecumenical portent ...."

Review, The Expository Times.

--- "Impeccable, truly a marvel ..."

Review, The Catholic Historical Review.

--- "An invaluable contribution ...."

James P Wesberry, Executive Director, The Lord's Day Alliance of the USA.

--- "A stimulating and luminous study."

Review, The Banner.

--- "A startling treasury of information ...."

Review, The Disciple.

--- "A scholarly and fascinating study ..."

Robert I Fauth, President, Eden Theological Seminary.

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi was the first "separated brother" to earn a doctoratus at the Pontifical Gregorian University at Rome. He was awarded a gold medal donated by Pope Paul VI for academic distinction.

NEW CLOTH EDITION,

384 pages, $9.95, postage paid.

MAIL YOUR PRE-PAID ORDER TO:

Dr. Sarnuele Bacchiocchi

230 Lisa Lane

Berrien Springs,

Michigan 49103

CHRISTIANITY TODAY

Page 7

PACIFIC UNION RECORDER   Dec. 17, 1979   -- Teacher Given Leave to Prepare Doctrinal Statement --

by -- J. W. Cassell, President, Pacific Union College

Some administrative decisions of the Church are of interest to the membership at large. When there is a possibility that these decisions may be misinterpreted or misunderstood it is desirable, and necessary to the unity of the Church, that an informational statement be issued. A recent decision by one of the educational institutions of the Church impacts on two world divisions and seems to require such a statement.

The board of trustees of Pacific Union College, after consulting with representatives of the General Conference and the Australasian Division, has voted to give Dr. Desmond Ford, a visiting professor from the Australasian Division, a leave of absence with salary to provide him an opportunity to devote his full time to continued research and preparation of a documented statement on the topic of the sanctuary and related issues.

This board action was the result of a public presentation by Dr. Ford on the subject of the investigative judgement in a meeting of the Association of Adventist Forums held on the campus of Pacific Union College October 27, 1979, in which he took issue with basic theological positions held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

During this leave of absence, Dr. Ford will be located in the Washington, D.C., area where the resources of the General Conference Archives, the Ellen G. White Estate, and the Biblical Research Institute will be available to him. Provision will be made for Dr. Ford to consult in Washington with other theologians of the Church.

In harmony with the Church Manual, Dr. Ford's documented statement will be reviewed by Biblical scholars and administrative leaders of the Church in the summer of 1980.

An Identical Statement appeared in the Adventist Review, December 20, 1979, p. 23 over the name of Elder C. 0. Franz, Secretary of the General Conference. This indicates complete concurrence between the Board of Trustees of Pacific Union College and the General Conference as suggested in this article. Such a mutual report spreads the accountability for the results that might follow the action taken.

OBSERVATIONS ON ACTION TAKEN REGARDING DR. DESMOND FORD -- In the above report of the action taken by the Pacific Union College Board, it is stated to be in harmony with the Church Manual, but no page reference is given. However, the Church Manual does state in the section entitled - ''Reasons for Which Members Shall Be Disciplined'' (page varies with year of edition):       Among the grievous sins for which members shall be subject to church discipline are the following:

1.   Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the cardinal doctrines of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same.

It is admitted in the action of the College Board, Dr. Ford at a meeting on the

Page 8

campus of the college "took issue with basic theological positions held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church." And the Church Manual outlines the due process to be followed in such a situation. This has not been done in the case of Dr. Ford. He has been made a special case and taken out of the hands of the local church of which he is a member. Why?

Further the statement indicates that during the leave of absence, Dr. Ford will still be paid by the sacred tithe. He will also be given free and unlimited access to "the resources of the General Conference Archives, the Ellen G. White Estate, and the Biblical Research Institute." What other avowed enemy of basic Adventism than Walter Martin, during the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956, has been given such a privilege. Let a concerned layperson, or a concerned minister of the Church ask for this opportunity, and note what response they would receive from the powers that be. But here is a man who is declared by formal action of the Board of Pacific Union College, and concurred in by the hierarchy of the Church, to be at variance with "basic theological positions" given this privilege.

Was Elder M. L. Andreasen given this privilege? And Andreasen was merely seeking to defend the historic faith of the Church against the inroads being made by the apostates who were involved in the book - Questions on Doctrine. What about Elder David Bauer, and others that could be named who have taken issue with apostasy in high places? Were they granted a leave of absence with pay, and full access to the "resources" of the Church from which to prepare a paper in defense of the faith once delivered to this people? Why this double standard? Why is the leadership of the Church deferring to an admitted apostate from "basic" Adventist doctrine, and giving him the full ''resources'' of the Church - finance and otherwise to substantiate his heresy, when in times past this same leadership has taken an inhumane and un-Christlike attitude and position toward those who have merely sought to uphold the faith committed to this people in 1844, and re-emphasized in 1888?

These questions demand an answer. We suggest some possible answers for your consideration. The actual decision in regard to what Dr. Ford is teaching has been postponed beyond the next General Conference Session to be held in Dallas, Texas, in April, 1980. It will not be until in the summer following the session that whatever Dr. Ford presents to the "administrative leaders" will be reviewed. This assures - so the hierarchy hopes - no introduction of controversial doctrinal matters before the General Conference in session. Only the General Conference in session can alter the doctrines of the Church. However, since the Evangelical conferences in 1955-1956, the doctrines of the Church have been altered by merely publishing books with the endorsement of "The Editorial Committee" as was done in the case of Questions on Doctrine, or carrying the imprimatur of "the first'' minister of the Church, as was done with Movement of Destiny. It will be most interesting to see what Wilson will do, if his interim appointment as "first minster" of the Church is extended to a full term by the delegates.

It must not be forgotten that Elder Neal C. Wilson is part and parcel of the apostasy and trends which took place in the Church during the Pierson years. In 1967, the officers of the General Conference, including Wilson, invited representatives of the liberal intelligentsia of the Church to meet with them in Washington.

Page 9

''The purpose was to discuss possible methods of establishing a cohesive program to provide dialogue between the church leadership and this segment of the laity and to involve the latter more significantly in the activities and concerns of the formal church. The outgrowth of that meeting was an action by the officers of the General Conference (taken at the 1967 Fall Council) to approve the establishment of an organization known as the Association of Adventist Forums." (Spectrum, Winter, 1969, p. 5) This Association through its Forum meetings, and its publication - Spectrum - has questioned various positions of the teachings of the Church including Creationism, and the inspiration and validity of the writings of Ellen G. White. This Association has used the facilities of the Church, and has prospered under its blessing. Dr. Ford - who has been disseminating various apostasies - through books, articles, and appointments to Campmeetings - chose well the place to present his challenge to the sanctuary doctrine of the Church. What he presented from the podium of the Association of Adventist Forums on the campus of Pacific Union College was not just a spur of the moment study, but one which has been developing in Ford's thinking over a period of years. How could Wilson, or the Board of Trustees of the college deal with Ford, when they have placed, either directly, or indirectly by corporate involvement, their approval on what the Association of Adventist Forums stands for? Wilson could not afford to alienate the liberals, nor could he dare countenance Ford in the face of the growing conservative reaction to Ford's theology, and expect to be elected president of the General Conference in Dallas. So the day of reckoning was postponed till after the status quo is firmly established at the curia on the Sligo.

Wilson has another problem. He placed his nihil obstat on the book - Movement of Destiny. As Chairman of the Guiding Committee for this book, he stands in a place of responsibility for what is to be found in this book. (p. 16) This book, like its predecessor - Questions on Doctrine - is filled with double-talk. But Froom is very explicit in certain places regarding the atoning sacrifice on Calvary. He captioned a section - ''Atoning 'Act' Completed on Calvary's Cross.'' (p. 500) Throughout this section, Froom twists and bends the writings of Ellen G. White to support this caption. Her position is very clear and simple - ''Christ's sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete. The condition of the atonement had been fulfilled.'' (AA, P. 29) Having fulfilled the ''condition,'' Jesus could enter as High Priest into the heavenly sanctuary to make atonement "by means of His own blood."

However, if Froom's position is carried to its ultimate and logical conclusion, there would be no need for Christ to carry on an intercession, or to offer His blood in the sanctuary above. Or would there be any sense in a ''final atonement," or "special atonement'' for ''all who could be benefited by His mediation, and thus cleanse the sanctuary.'' (EW, pp. 251, 253) What more could Christ obtain for us, if He obtained it all on Calvary in ''the Act'' of the Atonement? And all that Ford is doing is carrying to its ultimate the positions upon which Neal Wilson placed his nihil obstat. (A good word, look it up in the Dictionary.) What then can Wilson do, but to recommend that Ford come to Washington, and have free access to the same sources that Froom used, and the opportunity which was afforded Walter Martin.

The compromises in the Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956 have now come to full fruitage in Dr. Desmond Ford's position on the atonement. The book - Questions

Page 10

 on Doctrine - reads clearly this germination:

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 that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests. (pp. 354-355)

While He is our High Priest ministering on our behalf, He is also co-executive with the Father in the government of the universe. How glorious is the thought that the King, who occupies the throne, is also our representative at the court of heaven! This becomes all the more meaningful when we realize that Jesus our surety entered the "holy places," and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross. (p. 381)

Only Christ, the Creator, the one and only God-man, could make a substitutionary atonement for men's transgression. And this Christ did completely, perfectly, and once for all, on Golgotha. (p. 400)

WHEN ONE LAUDS AN INDIVIDUAL AS A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, SUBCONSCIOUSLY HE IS TELLING YOU SOMETHING. THE PREVAILING WINDS VARY WITH THE SEASONS.

"Never were sadder words penned than the messages of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and John, depicting the awful fate of God's children who departed from Him. It is infinitely sadder to think of a church of God to whom has come great light and privilege, through whom God has worked mightily in the salvation of souls, turning from her trust, her opportunities, her privileges, from the great message which made her all that she is, and trusting in herself and her own charms, her own riches, her own beauties, in union with the world, go down to destruction. When that time comes God's plea comes not to the church but to each individual alone. 'If any man hear My voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with Me.'"