Over the years, I have looked for simpler and simpler ways to explain why Desmond Ford ‘s 3-pronged attack on Adventist theology was so persuasive and yet, why it was so wrong. This is my simplest attempt yet:
Argument #1 – The Investigative Judgment is incompatible with the gospel.
This accusation implies one of two possibilities:
a) A correct understanding of the gospel requires an acceptance of Predestination or of One Saved Always Saved (OSAS). If so, that’s what Dr. Ford should have argued, instead of attacking the Investigative Judgment.
b) Otherwise, any version of a non-Predestination/non-OSAS gospel inherently implies an investigative judgment.
(For more on this see here http://bit.ly/InvestigativeJudgement)
Argument 2 – The Investigative Judgment is a theological construct that is completely reliant on several dozen assumptions (ex. day/year principle, the Kind James translation of certain terms, the right decree to rebuild Jerusalem, etc.). If any one of these assumptions is wrong, the entire construct is wrong.
In reality, the Investigative Judgment requires just three assumptions:
1) A non-Predestination/non-OSAS version of the gospel.
2) A God who respects free will enough to hold open court rather than decide on His own who is saved/lost.
3) Belief that people don’t go to heaven or hell immediately after death, and therefore, don’t need to be judged until just prior to the second coming.
(For more on this see here http://bit.ly/ijassumptions)
Argument 3 – Adventists superimpose their beliefs on Dan. 8 rather than drawing them from the text.
If an ancient holy book makes predictions regarding future events for the purpose of verifying its own authenticity, and if those predictions are made using symbols, then a set of keys of interpretation has to also be provided. Otherwise, someone could just look at history and interpret the symbols in whatever way fits. Needless to say, this completely robs the prediction of any evidential value.
Adventists do have a coherent and Biblically-based set of keys of prophetic interpretation. Dr. Ford’s approach, on the other hand, simply lines up the prophecy with wherever it fits in history, and therefore, is self-refuting.
(For more on this see here http://bit.ly/KeysOfInterpretation)