FORD AND WEBER DIALOGUE

Section III: Weber responds to Ford

I'm certainly glad, Des, for your sake and mine, that the format of this book provides
opportunity to clarify misconceptions that arise. Please know that in referring to you as the
"most hated and feared man in recent Adventist history," this was not my own sentiment but
rather what I've observed during my ministry around North America. No doubt many Adventists
elsewhere have a positive perception of you--and many in the United States surely do as well--
but in visiting many camp meetings and churches during the last 12 years, I've witnessed mostly
the negative.

It's understandable that many Adventists don't feel good about you, since you felt
compelled to challenge a basic pillar of church doctrine. Yet few thoughtful observers would
deny that you have represented Christ in your teaching and personal conduct and thus deserve to
be treated in like manner. In any case, 1 Corinthians 13 mandates the expression of agape love
even for those who don't deserve it. After all, grace is the heartbeat of Christianity.

Tangible evidence of negativity toward you is that bestseller of the early eighties, Omega.
It didn't actually mention the name Desmond Ford, of course, but everyone I know discerned that
you were considered the Omega man, the pied piper of final apostasy. If such an assessment is
correct, then Omega was an unworthy means to the worthy goal of fostering confidence in the
1844 celestial judgment--a unique and valuable doctrine when rightly understood. Rather than
being a biblical defense of the sanctuary, Omega implied the existence of a supposedly secret
conspiracy of heresy. I think this was unfortunate, for several reasons:

First, the book both nurtured and spawned a spirit of fear, suspicion and intrigue that
created a climate of animosity. Adventists should have felt free to engage in frank and fruitful
discussions, like our early pioneers did in the Bible conferences of 1848. Instead, the
fundamental life and death issues you raised were denied, discounted or discarded by many.
Others whose consciences couldn't bury their questions become the focus of inquisitional tactics
on the part of certain earnest members. No doubt many of our leaders did honestly assess your
teachings at Glacier View, but perhaps others saw the occasion primarily as an opportunity to get
you out of the ministry. And when the church voided your credentials, that sent a shock wave of
fear around the world for Adventist pastors and teachers. I recall my own agony in seeing friend
after friend leave the ministry--or be forced out by well meaning but intolerant defenders of the
faith. Some pastors we lost no doubt were arrogant and insubordinate, but many others were just
confused and frustrated. Through patience, candor and solid biblical reasoning, probably we
would have kept most of them with us. But the Omega mentality did not foster open discussion.

Contrary to what many Adventists believe, Des, I know you did not encourage pastors to
quit. I tried to help several of them get the answers they needed to your questions, but the
conference president told us to stop studying together. Within a few months they all left the
ministry and the church, while I got the necessary answers and stayed. I'll always appreciate one
2 Weber responds to Ford - III

leader for sitting down with me, opening the Bible, and studying the meaning of judgment. He
didn't threaten me with Ellen White quotations, nor did he offer cheap platitudes (like "Just stay
with the ship!"). On several occasions busy man opened his Bible and discussed the questions
you raised. Some administrators, however, attempted to sweep everything under the rug under
the banner of denominational patriotism ("The church is going through!") and the authority of
Ellen White's inspiration.

Which brings me to my second lament about the Omega stampede. That book was
promoted everywhere as a tool to save the church from doctrinal heresy and apostasy, yet in all
its pages there were just four partial Bible texts cited, and only one complete Scripture verse
quoted. Just one. Meanwhile, Omega featured 124 Ellen White quotations. Now, that's
downright remarkable--124 to 1! That ratio says something about the mindset of many
Adventists. Do they consider themselves "people of the Book"?

Meanwhile, with a much less public profile than Omega enjoyed, some excellent biblical
research was happening at the seminary and the Biblical Research Institute. Also, Ministry
magazine in October 1980 came out with a biblically-based defense of 1844 and the sanctuary
message. But it seemed to me, in travelling around, that many Adventists preferred the Omega
approach over the biblical approach. How sad.

Another regrettable fruit of the Omega mentality was the apparent wholesale blacklisting
of everything the name Desmond Ford stands for without affirming any of the good things you
say. As I mentioned in my chapter about you, the truth is that all through these years you've
defended the Sabbath, the law, Ellen White's inspiration and integrity, and other basic beliefs
(except for the 1844 judgment). No question about it; some Adventists felt it appropriate to
defame and slander your faith and your character while shunning theological discussion. This is
sad, too.

Let's save that baby

It seems so sad, though, that you "threw out the baby with the bath water." What I
consider a unique and indispensable pillar of Adventism--the 1844 celestial judgment--you felt it
necessary to dispense with altogether. Certainly you believe in a final judgment, as you stated in
your position paper for this book. It's your wholesale rejection of the 1844 judgment that I
lament.

As I mentioned in my chapter and you affirmed in your reply, certain traditional

misunderstandings about the judgment have resulted in the awfully discouraging, faith-
destroying heresies that transformed myriads of sincere Adventists into Sadventists. You and
others proposed to heal the wounds, but instead of rescuing the 1844 judgment from the jaws of
legalism, you dismissed and denounced the doctrine itself.

Des, without question I don't know nearly as much as you do about the Bible. But in
wrestling with the questions you raised about certain traditional interpretations, many Adventists
now rejoice in what we consider to be a logical and biblically sound model of the 1844 judgment
that not only harmonizes with the gospel but showcases the cross of Christ.
3 Weber responds to Ford - III

Consider, for example, the concept that in the ancient Jewish legal system, judgment was
not a threat because the judge was on the side of the accused. Likewise, in the heavenly
judgment God takes much pleasure in giving us the kingdom. He Himself has been under attack
from Satan's charges, and when He overcomes them, we win too. What a difference this makes
to a Sadventist looking for a smile from the sanctuary. I also think we can retain confidence in
the 1844 judgment and still be faithful to the context of Daniel 8, building upon its primary
theme of restoration and vindication for the sanctuary. Without linguistic gymnastics, the
vindication/restoration model bridges nicely from Daniel 8/9 over to the Day of Atonement
cleansing of the sanctuary in Leviticus 16.

As for the New Testament, as long as we don't base our theology on geography, Hebrews
is in harmony with our historic belief in a two-phase ministry of Christ (more on this later). The
book of Revelation abounds in sanctuary/judgment images. Above everything else is the gospel
assurance that believers in Jesus are not judged--although the sincerity of their faith is vindicated
or condemned in the 1844 judgment. Works enter in as evidence of true faith, but our successes
and failures need not trouble us when we exchange what the world offers for what God offers us:
Jesus, our ticket to heaven, certified as worthy through His resurrection and ascension.

Des, I believe that all of the above harmonizes with the cross of Christ, yet you still reject
the 1844 judgment as inherently legalistic and unbiblical. This seems sad and unnecessary. I'm
not a qualified biblical scholar by any means, but excellent Adventist scholars have indeed
answered all your questions--if not to your satisfaction, then certainly to mine. And so let us
address the objections you raised in responding to my chapter about you in this book.

First we need to clarify why I brought up the judgment in analyzing your salvation
statement. Des, I had to because you did! You mentioned the word judgment twice, so I had to
deal with it lest someone suspect me of avoiding a difficult issue. The judgment is, anyway,
much more a matter of salvation than of eschatology and therefore relevant to this book.
Atonement and the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary also are profound salvation issues
needing consideration in my analysis.

Atonement in heaven
Now let's look at your concerns about my concerns with your teaching on salvation
issues. First, regarding atonement. You said: "Martin Weber finds fault with my understanding
of the word atonement. Contrary to what he suggests, I do not see the word as signifying only
Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. What I do see is that the chief New Testament use of the concept is
thus applied." I'm glad for that clarification, Des, and forgive me if I jumped to the wrong
conclusion. What influenced me was your statement which I quoted: "The Day of Atonement
was the day of the atonement and that atonement everywhere in the New Testament is set forth as
finished on the cross."1 If indeed you do see a wider meaning to atonement than that which
happened at the cross, why not incorporate that in your teaching about Christ's ministry as our
High Priest?

I mentioned already in this book that the Bible teaches three distinct functions of

1
Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14 the Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment (Casselberry, Fla.: Euangelion
Press, 1980), p. 133.
4 Weber responds to Ford - III

atonement: 1) inauguration of the sanctuary system, 2) the daily sacrifice for covering sin and 3)
the final cleansing of sin. We find all three applied to Christ in the book of Hebrews. Des,
please consider the possibility that the inauguration of Christ after His ascension is an
underdeveloped theme in your sanctuary teaching. Much of what you consider Day of
Atonement imagery, upon a closer look, apparently points to Christ's inauguration in the
presence of the Father. Let's remember that there was an inaugural ceremony of atonement in
Old Testament times involving the Most Holy Place.

The second function of atonement came next, the daily or "continual" priestly mediation,
which Hebrews documents well. Then followed that final phase of atonement with its judgment
and cleansing--also quite visible in Hebrews. Des, you questioned my interpretation of Hebrews
9:23, which speaks of a cleansing going on in heaven related to the sanctuary service. But I don't
think we can escape the fact that "heavenly things themselves" are spoken of in terms of
cleansing. Heavenly things! Not just things on the cross but things in heaven.

What needs cleansing in heaven? Lucifer and his followers aren't polluting the place any
more. The holy angels aren't sinning. So what needs cleansing up there except the sanctuary?--
which is the very subject under discussion in the context. And notice the verses immediately
following. Verse 24 says that Christ is putting away sin for us in the presence of God, and verse
28 is freighted with the most profound Day of Atonement images in all of Hebrews, describing
Jesus coming out of the sanctuary "unto those who look for Him," no longer a sin bearer. Why?
Obviously, His work as mediator is finished and the sanctuary has been cleansed. It's hard to
miss the connection between this event and the emergence of the high priest on the Day of
Atonement coming out of the purified sanctuary to bless the waiting people who have been
looking for him.

Des, you mention that non-Adventist commentators don't teach the cleansing of the
sanctuary as we do. That would be understandable, because if they believed in the cleansing of
the heavenly sanctuary they probably wouldn't be non-Adventists. Most of them don't interpret
the first day/seventh day texts as we do, either.

Actually, though, I didn't have to look any further than the bookshelf in my office to find
a classic Protestant commentary that acknowledges the cleansing of the sanctuary. Note this
from the Pulpit Commentary on Hebrews 9:23: "According to the view taken under ch. viii. 2
and ch. ix. 11, 'the heavenly things' here must be taken to denote the corresponding realities in
the heavenly sphere of things to which Christ has gone. But how can they themselves be said to
require purification of cleansing?"2 No definitive explanation is given, but the suggestion is
made that "the heavenly sanctuary may be said to need purification" for "the appeasing of Divine
wrath which bars the entrance of mankind."3 Very interesting, and very Adventist too. Questions
on Doctrine, which to me is perhaps the most useful and important Adventist publication in my
lifetime, quotes a number of respected non-Adventist commentators who see a cleansing of the
heavenly sanctuary in Hebrews 9:23.4 None of these respected non-Adventist scholars were
2
The Pulpit Commentary (New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls, 1950), vol. 21, p. 235.
3
Ibid.
4
Quoting Dean Henry Alford: "We must therefore rest in the plain and literal sense: that the heaven itself needed,
5 Weber responds to Ford - III

among the Millerites of 1844, but all of them acknowledged that Hebrews 9:23 calls for the
cleansing of heavenly things related to the sanctuary.

Celestial geography
In your books and sermons, Des, you seem to assume that Christ's presence at the right
hand of God disallows a future, end-time Day of Atonement phase of His sanctuary ministry.
Perhaps you are making the same mistake--from the opposite extreme--as those Adventists who
let geography dictate their theology about the sanctuary.

Those of us who believe in the final phase of Christ's ministry need not prove the
existence of two literal apartments in heaven's sanctuary. Those dual apartments on earth pointed
forward to dual phases in Christ's heavenly ministry, after His inaugural ceremony. Des, why
make an issue of geography when long ago most Adventist scholars stopped making a case of it?
Consider Roy Adam's book recently released, which you mentioned yourself. My own Some
Call It Heresy took the same position back in 1985, and Questions on Doctrine plus many other
books and articles did long before that. So please, let's stop making an issue out of geography.

Shunning theology by geography, let's notice in passing that the book of Hebrews does
use the plural form in describing the sanctuary where Jesus entered. He did not enter the "Most
Holy Place" but literally "the holies" to serve in God's presence. My understanding of Christ's
multi-phase ministry being symbolized by multiple compartments is strengthened, not weakened,
by this plural in Hebrews. Since heaven evidently doesn't have a veil separating two
compartments, why was the plural mentioned here if not to support the symbol of a multi-phase
ministry?

Before we leave Hebrews, let me remind readers that the basic purpose of the book was
not to provide a systematic study of the sanctuary and the Sabbath. Jewish Christians already
were well acquainted with both truths; what they needed, and what the Hebrews epistle to them
provided, was an explanation of how Jesus is the center of the sanctuary and the Sabbath. Des,
let's not do with the sanctuary what non Adventists do with the Sabbath, rejecting a doctrine
because the New Testament doesn't lay again the same foundation already well established in the
Old Testament.
and obtained, purification by the atoning blood of Christ" (The Greek Testament, 1864, p. 179. Quoted in Questions
on Doctrine (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1957), p. 434. Another non-Adventist scholar, A.
S. Peake wrote: "What is meant by the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary must be determined by its meaning as
applied to the earthly. The ritual of the Day of Atonement was designed, not merely to atone for the sins of the
people, but to make atonement for the sanctuary itself. The sense of this would seem to be that the constant sin of
Israel had communicated a certain uncleanness to the sanctuary. Similarly the sin of mankind might be supposed to
have cast its shadow even into heaven (New Century Bible, "Hebrews," p. 191. Emphasis supplied. Quoted in
Questions, p. 435.).
Another respected non-Adventist scholar, Dr. Brooke Foss Westcott observed: "The Blood of Christ by
which the New Covenant was inaugurated was available also for the cleansing of the heavenly archetype of the
earthly sanctuary. ... It may be said that even 'heavenly things,' so far as they embody the conditions of man's future
life, contracted by the Fall something which required cleansing. (The Epistle to the Hebrews [1903], pp. 271, 272.
Quoted in Questions, p. 435.).
Brook Foss Westcott, a noted non-Adventist exegete of the nineteenth century, made this significant
comment on Hebrews 9:23: "The whole structure of the sentence requires that 'cleansed' should be supplied in the
second clause from the first" (Epistle to the Hebrews, 1892, p. 270.). In other words, the heavenly sanctuary had to
be cleansed.
6 Weber responds to Ford - III

The judgment in Revelation

The fact is that the sanctuary, though not systematically explained, is well represented in
the New Testament--not only in Hebrews but elsewhere, particularly in Revelation. The
Apocalypse is full of sanctuary and Day of Atonement imagery. In chapter 8, for example, an
angel "having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar" (verse 3). The golden censer was
exclusive to the Day of Atonement; its extra incense represents our total dependence upon the
merits of Jesus during the time of judgment. Chapter 11 opens and closes with
sanctuary/judgment imagery: "Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel
stood, saying, 'Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there'"
(verse 1). "Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen
in His temple" (verse 19). If this isn't describing an investigative judgment going on up there, I
don't know what else it is referring to.

Then there's our traditional judgment verse, Revelation 14:7, which remains quite
convincing when we recall that its judgment is happening while the gospel is still going forth
(verse 6) before Jesus comes (verse 14). I know, Des, that you see similar language here with the
final judgment at end of the world, but there is a pre-advent context to this Revelation 14
judgment. Certainly, God doesn't need 150 years to decide what He already knows, but He's
very patient, not willing that any should perish as the gospel and its counterfeit ripen into their
respective harvests.

Please don't overlook Revelation 12, where we see the devil accusing the saints of being
unworthy. Obviously, there's an evaluation going on--a judgment. And we triumph over Satan's
accusations through the blood of the Lamb (see Rev. 12:10,11)--another vivid and gospel-
centered judgment vignette.

Perhaps the most compelling Day of Atonement imagery in Revelation is the scene in
chapters 4 and 5, where the scroll is unsealed and the question is determined: Who is worthy? If
this isn't a picture of the judgment, I don't know what else it could be.5 And it's occurring before
the Revelation 20 final judgment that executes hellfire.

What can we conclude from this? All these are judgment images connected with the
sanctuary before the second coming of Christ. The case is pretty strong for the celestial
judgment just as we've always proclaimed it (in terms of its timing, cleansed of all legalism).

Sanctification by faith?
Now let's move on to the other issues you raised regarding salvation. As for
"righteousness by faith" including only justification, let's look beyond those particular words and
consider the whole spectrum of Scriptural teaching regarding salvation. The dominant New
Testament image of salvation is the 'in Christ' model, mentioned by Paul some 164 times, while
the three Greek words translated "justification," "justify" and "justified" are included only a total
of 47 times. With the "in Christ" motif more than three times more prevalent than justification
and also more frequently than any other salvation metaphor, it seems we should put our emphasis

5
In my books More Adventist Hot Potatoes and Some Call It Heresy I discuss the compelling connection between
Revelation 4/5 and the pre-advent judgment of Daniel 7.
7 Weber responds to Ford - III

where the Holy Spirit does.

We are accepted "in the Beloved," (Eph. 1:6), but we also are empowered "in Christ" to
overcome sin (Romans 6 and 8). And while our hope always remains anchored in the blood of
Christ rather than in the new birth or its fruit, our discussion of salvation must not focus
exclusively on justification.

Des, some have said that you yourself once taught that sanctification is part of the
righteousness by faith experience, in some articles you wrote for our Australian church papers
back in the 50s. Believing that didn't hinder your gospel witness then, nor need it now. Your
concern is preserving the vital life and death reality that our faith must be fixed exclusively on
the blood of Christ rather than how well we are overcoming sin, and I definitely concur.
Absolutely nothing is more important in Christian teaching than maintaining our trust
exclusively in the blood of Jesus for our acceptance with God. This is something for which we
should be willing to burn at the stake.

On the matter of sanctification, I appreciate your insight into the original languages.
Sanctification in its derived, secondary sense, is overcoming sin, but in its primary sense,
sanctification is simply being set apart for God. Just as God took the seventh day and
"sanctified" it, setting it apart from the other days, so He takes us through our faith and sanctifies
us from the world, that is, He sets us apart for Himself. In that sense Christ Himself said "I
sanctify myself" (John 17), not because He was overcoming sin but because His life was set
apart or consecrated for God. Because faith in Jesus involves putting our trust in Him instead of
in this world, it sets us apart from the world; in other words, it sanctifies us.

Applied in daily living, this faith that sets us apart for God also brings victory over sin.
Every temptation is an invitation from Satan to deny our set-apartness from the world, our
sanctification. By keeping focused on what Christ offers, we reaffirm by faith this set-apartness.
Thus faith is a purifying power. By filling us with gratitude for God's salvation, faith cleanses
our motives and enables loving obedience (Acts 15:9). In this way faith establishes the law
(Rom. 3:31). "This is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith" (1 John 5:4).

We see in the life of Zacchaeus the tax collector how the joy of God's acceptance through
Christ brings victory over sin. Bound by chains of greed, all the condemnations heaped upon
him by the legalistic Pharisees failed to break Satan's hold upon his soul. But just a few seconds
worth of Christ's acceptance and Zaccheus was giving half of his goods to the poor. Now that's
power over sin, power through simple faith--the same faith that brings salvation.

In Romans 4, the same faith that brought salvation to Abraham also empowered him to
conceive a new birth. We also see throughout Hebrews 11 that the same faith that saves us
brings us victory.

Faith and effort

In light of that it seems puzzling, Des, to read your following statement: "The New
Testament does not teach sanctification by faith alone. We are not zombies after conversion,
wherein God does everything and we do nothing. ... The New Testament uses about 20 verbs of
8 Weber responds to Ford - III

effort in connection with the process of character development. We are to strive, multiply, run,
crucify, fight, flee, etc."

Where is the connection between faith alone and being passive zombies? Faith is an
action word. The very words you use to promote sanctification all have a faith connection. All
of them. Paul said "I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and
men" (Acts 24:16), and a clear conscience happens when "being justified by faith, we have peace
with God" (Rom. 5:1).

"Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied" (1 Pet. 1:2); grace and peace with God come
through faith.

We must "run with endurance the race that is set before us, [which is] looking unto Jesus,
the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb. 12:1,2).

We also must "fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life" (1 Tim. 6:12).

Likewise you also, reckon yourselves [a faith term] to be dead [crucified] indeed to sin,
but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 6:11).

In Christ we "have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold [through
faith] of the hope set before us" (Heb. 6:18).

So again and again we see faith as an action word that brings both mercy and power, both
the merits of Christ and with it victory over sin. Of course, as one of the Reformers pointed out,
fire always brings both light and heat, but it's not the heat that helps us read. Only light qualifies
for that. Faith and works are like light and heat; they always go together (you've said that
yourself many times). And the reason they go together is that faith naturally begats works.

You would point out, Des, and I would absolutely agree with you, that problems occur
when people start trying to measure their faith to see if it's worthy. They become obsessed with
every freckle on their faith and speckle on their fruit. That's where the blood of Christ brings
comfort and hope. Praise God that you proclaim it, as clearly as anybody in Adventist history. It
would be wonderful if you also could proclaim it in the context of the celestial judgment.

In closing, Des, let me express again my regret that some Adventists have felt it
necessary to slander you instead of coming to terms with your teaching. I relate to this from
personal experience. It so happened that one of the independent "ministries" took the tape of a
talk I gave on coping with sexual temptation and made it seem that I was promoting immorality.
In that talk to a group of college students, I expressed no less than 28 times support for God's
law, and 47 times I spoke of immorality as sin. I made statement after statement such as: "The
grace of God gives us courage to confront our sins and overcome them." "There is victory in
Jesus so that we need not yield to temptations." "Let's get in touch with our feelings but let's not
indulge them. God forbid!"

I spoke those very words and many more like them in that one talk, and yet this preacher
9 Weber responds to Ford - III

of "righteousness" blatantly accused me of promoting or at least condoning immorality. On his

fund-raising tape he replayed the part of my talk where I introduced the subject, but he cut it off
immediately as I began speaking about God's law. In fact, the next line after he cut me off I
quoted Romans 10:13 about true love honoring God's law. And during the other nine talks of my
week of prayer I spoke on the whole range of Christian-life issues. Yet this man accused me of
spending the whole week promoting sin.

May God have mercy on him and on the people who follow his distortions. May He also
have mercy on me as the victim of such slander. And on you too, Des, who have tasted that
bitterness far more than I have.

When it comes to your theology, I think we should affirm whatever we can affirm,
discuss the rest, and frankly acknowledge our differences while retaining a Christian spirit.
You've made that possible in these pages, Des, and I've appreciated the opportunity for dialogue.
Perhaps some of what is said here makes sense to you, and maybe someday you will find it
possible to proclaim the grace of God--as you so eloquently and faithfully do--in the context of
vintage Seventh-day Adventist doctrine.