Some years ago I read a story of a group of American university students in a fraternity house on the eve of World War II, as they argued the issues that seeded the most devastating conflict thus far experienced in human history. Some of those present saw clearly the danger posed by Nazi Germany, while others endeavored to see “both sides” of the issue, noting—among other things—how the German people had suffered through the unfairness of the Versailles Treaty. (Few today dispute this alleged unfairness, which helps explain why the victorious Allies after World War II refrained from imposing similarly harsh measures on the defeated Axis powers [##1|Barbara W. Tuchman, The March of Folly From Troy to Vietnam (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), pp. 32-33.##].)

One of the aforementioned fraternity brothers, who favored a strong response to Hitler, wisely noted that the practical consequences of equalizing the good and bad on both sides was to effectively undermine any appeal for accountability. “If everybody is to blame,” the young man reasoned, “therefore nobody is to blame.”

A recent article in a leading Adventist publication, reflecting on the start of the Desmond Ford controversy over righteousness by faith fifty-plus years ago [2], likewise illustrates the peril of this approach to consequential issues, especially in the spiritual realm.

Heroes, Villains, or “Better Stories”?

The article in question observes as follows regarding the 1970s Ford controversy, which continues to this day:

During polarized times people tell simple stories to explain what is happening. Some told the hero story: Ford was a modern-day Paul or Luther, fighting bravely for the gospel. In this version the church becomes the corrupt institution run by Pharisees or prelates. Others told the villain story: Ford was an end-time Judas, a betrayer, a heretic, an apostate. A wolf driven by ill motives tearing at the helpless sheep.

These are fighting stories. They give us clean, clear-cut lines. Right and wrong sides are obvious; good guys and bad guys are easy to identify. They reflected passions but also aroused them. Talk to the people who went through those events, and you can still sometimes catch the emotion [3].

The problem here is failing to view religious controversy through the lenses of the Bible/Spirit of Prophecy worldview. One is hard pressed, when reading the Bible, to find religious disputes depicted in varying shades of gray. Far more often are they portrayed as a stark choice between truth and error, good and evil, righteousness and sin. The attempt to find a middle ground, where good and bad are acknowledged in both camps, is nothing new. People were trying that in Noah’s day. It’s interesting how Ellen White identifies those who were foremost in rejecting the ministry of Noah. It wasn’t those who openly rejected God, who offered human sacrifices or stole their neighbors’ wives. In her words:

The men of that generation were not, in the fullest acceptation of the term, idolaters. Many professed to be worshipers of God. They claimed that their idols were representations of the Deity, and that through them the people could obtain a clearer conception of the divine Being. This class were foremost in rejecting the preaching of Noah. As they endeavored to represent God by material objects, their minds were blinded to His majesty and power; they ceased to realize the holiness of His character, or the sacred, unchanging nature of His requirements. As sin became general, it appeared less and less sinful, and they finally declared that the divine law was no longer in force; that it was contrary to the character of God to punish transgression; and they denied that His judgments were to be visited upon the earth [##4|Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 95-96.##].

Like those today who seek to transcend with “better stories” the polarity of spiritual heroes and villains, these antediluvian moderates likely saw themselves as offering a middle course between two extremes—those on the “left” who rejected the true God altogether, and those “fundamentalists” on the “right” like Noah who rejected graven images altogether. Like the self-styled centrists in contemporary Adventism, we see from the above statement how familiarity with apostasy and spiritual compromise caused the middle-ground seekers of Noah’s day to see such departures from integrity as less and less offensive, and to view God’s standards as increasingly flexible.

But in the end, no middle ground was possible between the majority who turned God’s will aside and the faithful few who embraced God’s message for that time. And when the angel’s hand closed forever that door which had long offered grace and mercy, and the wrath of God engulfed an impenitent world eight days later, the fate of these middle-grounders proved no different from that of their overtly godless neighbors.

Many forget that the golden calf apostasy in Moses’ day likewise offered a middle ground of sorts. Aaron announced the idolatrous worship at the foot of Sinai as “a feast to the Lord” (Ex. 32:5)—not to the Apis bull or some other pagan god, despite the trappings. Elijah too understood the lure of this middle-ground illusion, declaring on Carmel, “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him” (I Kings 18:21).

Our Lord said it best: “Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).

Modern and postmodern intellectuals may revel in ambiguity, but the inspired writings do not.

The article in question speaks of those who view the late Desmond Ford as “a wolf driven by ill motives tearing at the helpless sheep” [5]. But as one who has opposed Ford’s theology since my youth, I can assure the author of the article under review, and all our readers, that I have never deigned to decipher Ford’s motives. As a former U.S. president once said, that’s “beyond my pay grade.” God alone knows the heart (I Kings 8:39). As one who knew and frequently interacted with Ford during those years, I would agree with the author of the article in question that Ford was “a true gentleman” [6].

But that isn’t the issue. Truth and error are the issue. And on that score, Ford’s teachings represent what was likely the most deadly assault on the integrity of the Seventh-day Adventist faith in the history of our denomination.

Ford’s theology of sin and salvation was, and is, a tissue of errors from start to finish. His initial premise was the doctrine of original sin—the belief that humans are sinners at birth, through no choice of their own. But the Bible explicitly denies this theory (Eze. 18:20; Rom. 5:12; James 1:14-15). Ford’s view on the nature of sin naturally led him to deny the identification of the incarnate Christ with fallen human nature. But the Bible is clear this is precisely the humanity our Lord took when He came to this earth (Rom. 1:3; 8:3; Heb. 2:14-17; 4:15). Ford taught that the Biblical phrase “righteousness by faith” includes justification only, yet the Bible uses this phrase more than once to include faith working by love through the Holy Spirit, writing the law on the heart and producing the obedience of sanctification in consecrated lives (Rom. 10:6-8; Gal. 5:5-6; Heb. 11:7).

Ford likewise insisted that the righteousness of justification was exclusively declarative and not at all transformative. Yet in the Bible, when God declares something to be so, it in fact becomes so, as the Genesis creation story bears witness. When the leper came to Jesus in Matthew chapter 8 asking to be cleansed, Jesus replied, “Be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed” (Matt. 8:3). When Paul speaks of justifying righteousness he includes the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and the heart-cleansing accomplished by regeneration (Rom. 5:1,5; Titus 3:5-7).

Most dangerous of all, Ford taught that because of humanity’s inherited sinful nature, even the empowering grace of the Holy Spirit falls short of fully expelling sin from the Christian life. Yet the Bible is clear beyond misunderstanding that through heaven’s imparted strength, here on earth, human beings can live sin-free lives (e.g. Psalm 119:1-3,11; Isa. 1:16-17; Zeph. 3:13; Rom. 6:14; 8:4; I Cor. 15:34; II Cor. 7:1; 10:4-5; Eph. 5:27; I Thess. 5:23; I Peter 2:21-22; 4:1; II Peter 3:10-14; I John 1:7,9; 3:2-3,7; Jude 24; Rev. 3:21; 14:5).

This final point is the most dangerous of all in Ford’s salvation theology, and in the theology of those sympathetic to his views. If perfection is deemed impossible this side of heaven, the moral imperative is compromised for both morality and theology. Those who stray beyond the inspired guardrails relative to the origin of life, sexuality issues, gender authority, and a host of other questions both doctrinal and behavioral, are led by the logic of imperfectability to view all such infractions as tolerable. It is for this reason that Ford and his fellow travelers have facilitated the most destructive assault on our faith in the history of the great Advent movement. If perfection is deemed unattainable even for the sanctified, no appeal to strict integrity in any line is tenable.

As we noted earlier, God alone is the Judge of every heart (I Kings 8:39). Whether people merit the label of “hero” or “villain” is thus for Him to decide. But whether or not someone is teaching truth or falsehood can be determined by the objective, written counsel of God (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). On that basis, the Desmond Ford gospel is found thoroughly wanting.

Undefined Labels

The article in question introduces undefined and most unhelpful labels into the discussion when it observes:

If we are to understand the controversy of the 1970s and 1980s, we must acknowledge that many church members did hold to legalistic and perfectionistic misunderstandings of the gospel, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment. Ford’s singular emphasis on justification, forgiveness, and assurance brought relief to those in despair [7].

Unfortunately, words like “legalistic” and “perfectionistic” in the present context function much the way epithets like “woke,” “Marxist,” “socialist,” and “communist” function in today’s political discourse, especially in the United States. In most cases these labels are not defined by the user, which means they do little to inform those who hear them. Their effect instead is to close minds, shut down conversation, and facilitate the shunning of those to whom these labels are attached. The same holds true with such words as “legalism” and “perfectionism” in the contemporary Adventist scene.

Ellen White uses such phrases as “legal obedience” and “legal religion” over 50 times, and consistently these phrase are used to identify a surface piety that seeks to obey the requirements of God in one’s own strength, apart from conversion and sanctification. The following statements are typical:

God has given us the rule of conduct which every one of His servants must follow. It is obedience to His law, not merely a legal obedience, but an obedience which enters into the life and is exemplified in the character [##8|White, The Desire of Ages, p. 523.##].

He who is trying to reach heaven by his own works in keeping the law, is attempting an impossibility. There is no safety for one who has merely a legal religion, a form of godliness [##9|——The Desire of Ages, p. 172.##].

The spirit of bondage is engendered by seeking to live in accordance with legal religion, through striving to fulfill the claims of the law in our own strength [##10|——SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1077.##].

Legalism, in other words, has nothing to do with strict adherence to the written counsel of God, nor does it refer—as some allege—to trusting sanctification for acceptance with God. Rather, it refers to trusting self for power to obey, as distinct from trusting God’s imparted grace.

Regarding so-called “perfectionism,” perhaps a typical definition given this word in contemporary Adventism was supplied by an anonymous columnist in a liberal Adventist magazine sometime ago, who defined “perfectionism” as “living without sinning in any word, deed, or thought” [11]. But a thoughtful perusal of the inspired evidence should be sufficient to persuade honest readers that the above definition reflects the consensus of both Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy regarding the character attainment God expects of His children. What else but sinlessness can be seen in a verse like the following?

Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (II Cor. 7:1).

Ellen White is just as clear, in such statements as the following:

In our work, we are to remember the way in which Christ worked. He made the world. He made man. Then He came in person to the world to show its inhabitants how to live sinless lives [##12|White, Evangelism, p. 385.##].

To every one who surrenders fully to God is given the privilege of living without sin, in obedience to the law of heaven [##13|——Review and Herald, Sept. 27, 1906.##].

The Saviour is wounded afresh and put to open shame when His people pay no heed to His word. He came to this world and lived a sinless life, that in His power His people might also live lives of sinlessness. He desires them by practicing the principles of truth to show to the world that God’s grace has power to sanctify the heart [##14|——Review and Herald, April 1, 1902.##].

In the day of judgment the course of the man who has retained the frailty and imperfection of humanity will not be vindicated. For him there will be no place in heaven. He could not enjoy the perfection of the saints in light. He who has not sufficient faith in Christ to believe that He can keep him from sinning, has not the faith that will give him an entrance into the kingdom of God [##15|——Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 360.##].

Desmond Ford and his followers dispute the doctrinal authority of Ellen White for obvious reasons—a straightforward reading of such statements as the above cannot but compel belief in the imperative of sinless conduct through heaven’s power here on earth.

Relief at the Cost of Truth

The article in question correctly describes Ford’s approach to the gospel as involving a “singular emphasis on justification, forgiveness, and assurance” [16]. Therein lies a major problem with his theology, as such a singular focus on these elements is not found in the Bible. Scripture is clear that the Christian is not only saved by God’s forgiveness (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14), but also by regeneration (Titus 3:5) and sanctification (II Thess. 2:13). And the Bible never identifies Christian assurance as grounded solely in the righteousness of justification. Many are fond of quoting the statement in First John “that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (I John 5:13). But too many fail to finish the chapter. Verse 20 declares that “we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” Two chapters earlier, the same author identifies what it means to be “in Christ”:

And he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him (I John 3:24; see also II Cor. 5:17).

In other words, Ford’s “singular emphasis on justification, forgiveness, and assurance” [17] may indeed have “brought relief to those in despair” [18], but it was relief purchased at the price of truth. The Bible offers no salvation, nor any assurance thereof, based on forgiveness only. The New Testament is clear beyond misunderstanding that Spirit-empowered obedience forms an integral part of the conditions of human salvation (e.g. Matt. 7:21; 19:16-26; Luke 10:25-28; Rom. 2:6-10; 8:13; Heb. 5:9).

The article in question speaks not only of Ford but of others, then and now, who were (and are) “championing the joy of Christ’s justifying righteousness and emphasizing the possibility of real acceptance with Christ now” [19]. But neither Scripture nor Ellen White teach that the Christian’s acceptance with Christ is based on justification only. The apostle Peter declared in the house of Cornelius that “in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him” (Acts 10:35). Ellen White says the same thing, in such statements as the following:

This (Ex. l9:7-8) is the pledge that God’s people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him [##20|White, God’s Amazing Grace, p. 142.##].

Many of those who claim to believe the testing truths for these last days, act as though God took no note of their disrespect of, and manifest disobedience to, the principles of His holy law. The law is the expression of His will, and it is through obedience to that law that God proposes to accept the children of men as His sons and daughters [##21|——Sons and Daughters of God, p. 45.##]

Our faith requires us to elevate the standard of reform, and take advance steps. The condition of our acceptance with God is a practical separation from the world [##22|——Counsels on Health, p. 51.##]

Ellen White states elsewhere that “the righteousness by which we are justified is imputed; the righteousness by which we are sanctified is imparted” [##23|——Messages to Young People, p. 35.##]. With this in mind, consider the following Ellen White statement regarding our acceptance with God:

It was impossible for the sinner to keep the law of God, which was holy, just, and good; but this impossibility was removed by the impartation of the righteousness of Christ to the repenting, believing soul. The life and death of Christ in behalf of sinful man were for the purpose of restoring the sinner to God’s favor, through imparting to him the righteousness that would meet the claims of the law and find acceptance with the Father [##24|——Faith and Works, p. 118 (italics supplied).##].

Anyone “relieved” at the thought of being accepted by God solely through the righteousness of justification is clearly, on the basis of the above statements and numerous others, experiencing relief at the cost of truth.

Ford’s Justification Theology and the Investigative Judgment

The article in question rightly notes that a principal issue sparked by the Ford controversy of half a century ago was “the relationship between the gospel and the investigative judgment” [25]. But again, we need to define our terms. The article praises what it calls a “gospel-saturated” approach to the investigative judgment [26], as opposed—presumably—to the doctrine of the investigative judgment to which Ford took objection. But it isn’t enough to teach a “gospel-saturated theology.” The gospel we teach must first be based on the inspired witness.

At the start of His ministry Jesus declared His purpose to “preach the gospel to the poor,” to “heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised” (Luke 4:18). The apostle Paul writes, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom. 1:16). When we see how Biblical salvation is defined as being saved from sin (Matt. 1:21), and how this process includes both justifying and sanctifying righteousness (Eph. 1:7; 2 Thess. 2:13), the scope of the gospel according to Scripture becomes clearer still.

The message of the first angel in Revelation 14 underscores this point further, as it defines the content of the “everlasting gospel” (verse 6) as the summons to “fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come, and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters” (verse 7). Without question, these and the above verses identify the gospel as not merely an announcement of something God has already done, but also what humanity is to do through heaven’s power in cooperating with the divine purpose.

Ellen White is clear that “the very essence of the gospel is restoration” [##27|White, The Desire of Ages, p. 824.##], which certainly involves more than an objective act on God’s part. The Bible is clear that the divine law must disclose the reality of sin to the human agent before conversion and justification can be experienced (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:24). Hence we have the following Ellen White statements which describe the law as the root of the gospel:

Perfection of character is attainable by every one who strives for it. This is made the very foundation of the new covenant of the gospel. The law of Jehovah is the tree; the gospel is the fragrant blossoms and fruit which it bears [##28|——Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 212.##].

The law is the gospel embodied, and the gospel is the law unfolded. The law is the root, the gospel is the fragrant blossom and fruit which it bears [##29|——Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 128.##].

Other statements are equally clear that Spirit-empowered transformation and obedience represent an actual part of the gospel, not merely its result:

Said the apostle, speaking of the gospel, “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” [##30|——Review and Herald, June 11, 1889.##].

Teach them the first principle of the gospel, which is Christ formed within, the hope of glory [##31|——Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, p. 73.##].

The gospel of Christ is the law exemplified in character [##32|——Maranatha, p. 18.##].

When temperance is presented as a part of the gospel, many will see their need of reform [##33|——Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 75.##].

The Lord has given instruction that the gospel is to be carried forward, and the gospel includes health reform in all its phases [##34|——Medical Ministry, p. 159.##].

If our theology is to be truly “gospel-saturated,” the gospel we preach must be defined and expressed by the written counsel of God, not by the opinions of scholars and theologians. The author of the article in question writes glowingly of one contemporary Adventist scholar who—in his words—“revels in the joy-inducing, justifying righteousness of Christ, freely credited to us by faith alone, as much as Ford, and yet he sees that same righteousness not in opposition to the work of Christ in the judgment but as its centerpiece” [35].

But here is the problem. The Bible/Spirit of Prophecy doctrine of judgment doesn’t make justification its centerpiece, though justification is certainly a part of it. Justification is never depicted in the inspired writings as the sole means whereby one passes the test of God’s judgment, with sanctification serving merely as proof that justification has been accepted. Like the Bible, which identifies both justification and sanctification as part of the means of salvation (Eph. 1:7; II Thess. 2:13), Ellen White speaks of both as representing both the spotless righteousness of Jesus and the ground of the Christian’s hope:

The righteousness by which we are justified is imputed; the righteousness by which we are sanctified is imparted. The first is our title to heaven, the second is our fitness for heaven [##36|——Messages to Young People, p. 35.##].

The proud heart strives to earn salvation, but both our title to heaven and our fitness for it are found in the righteousness of Christ [##37|——The Desire of Ages, p. 300.##].

Christ bears the penalty of man’s past transgressions; and by imparting to man His righteousness, makes it possible for man to keep God’s holy law [##38|——SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1092.##].

So we have nothing in ourselves of which to boast. We have no ground for self-exaltation. Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us [##39|——Steps to Christ, p. 63.##].

When the Bible speaks of our examination in God’s judgment, it never describes justification as its primary focus. Solomon wrote that “God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Eccl. 12:14). The apostle Paul elaborates on this passage in the New Testament, declaring:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every man may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad (II Cor. 5:10).

Jesus declared that for “every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt. 12:36-37). Notice how the words we speak will either serve to justify or condemn us in the divine judgment. In His parable of the sheep and the goats Jesus makes it clear that how we treat the less fortunate among us will in fact determine our ultimate destiny (Matt. 25:31-46).

In none of the above judgment passages are believers depicted as vindicated by God solely through forgiveness, with practical obedience merely serving as evidence that forgiveness has been accepted. Desmond Ford’s judgment theology not only collides with the Adventist prophetic narrative; it collides directly with what Scripture teaches regarding God’s judgment and how believers will pass its scrutiny.

The late Dale Ratzlaff, an early disciple of Ford’s theology who left the church on account thereof, wrote a book attacking the doctrine of the investigative judgment, citing the following Ellen White statement as proof of this doctrine’s “legalistic,” allegedly burdensome character:

Our acts, our words, even our most secret motives, all have their weight in deciding our destiny for weal or woe. Though they may be forgotten by us, they will bear their testimony to justify or condemn. They go before us to the judgment [##40|——Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, p. 311.##].

Ratzlaff then exclaimed, in outrage:

Who could meet this test? Whose motives are one hundred percent right all the time? … This is not the gospel; it is condemnation [##41|Dale Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists: An Evangelical Resource, An Appeal to SDA Leadership (Sedona, AZ: Life Assurance Ministries, 1996), p. 236.##].

He had best take up his objection with Solomon, the apostle Paul, and the Lord Himself. That the final destiny of all will be based on their practical adherence, or lack thereof, to the eternal law of God, is a teaching firmly grounded in the consensus of Scripture, as the verses cited above make plain. Ellen White was a plagiarist, all right—she copied this teaching straight out of the Bible!

Candid Voices

Across the decades since Ford’s 1979 attack, the central role of the salvation and perfection issues in challenges to the classic Adventist 1844 theology has been laid bare by a cluster of candid voices sympathetic to Ford’s position. Following his own removal from the Adventist ministry, one of Ford’s leading acolytes was asked, “What do you see as being wrong with the Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment?” [##42|”Interview With Smuts Van Rooyen,” Evangelica, May 1982, p. 14.##]. He replied:

Let me answer that by reading a statement from Ellen White. She wrote this in the book The Great Controversy: “Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above, are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven…there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon earth” (p. 425).

What the investigative judgment boils down to in practice is this: When John Doe confesses the sin of impatience, that sin is not cancelled, but recorded. The blood of Jesus has simply transferred the sin from John to the sanctuary. In the judgment John must face that sin again. If by that time he has not overcome the sin, it remains against him. This then makes it imperative that John overcome every sin he has ever confessed. He must, in fact, reach perfection before his name comes up in the judgment or John Doe is a lost man. Now perfectionism is a terrible thing and it leads to devastating insecurity in one’s Christian experience, but perfectionism is an integral part of Mrs. White’s investigative judgment doctrine [##43|”Interview With Smuts Van Rooyen,” Evangelica, May 1982, p. 14 (italics Van Rooyen’s).##].

Several years thereafter, another of Ford’s fellow 1844 deniers made the following observation:

This is the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment as it was originally taught by Ellen White and the early pioneers. It is still taught extensively today by those who take Ellen White literally. It holds up an impossible demand, and breeds an unbearable insecurity. It is not surprising, then, that SDA scholars have sought to reinterpret it to bring relief to the oppressed. One cannot blame them for that. It is time for Adventism to face up to the true doctrine of the Investigative Judgment again and to admit that it is the mainspring of its perfectionism and the gushing fountain of its despair [##44|Brad McIntyre, “Investigating the Investigative Judgment,” Good News for Adventists (Auburn, CA: Good News Unlimited, 1985), p. 24.##].

Of course, what the above author derides as “perfectionism” is in fact the teaching of the Biblical consensus, as we have noted in the present article (e.g. Psalm 119:1-3,11; Isa. 1:16-17; Zeph. 3:13; Rom. 6:14; 8:4; I Cor. 15:34; II Cor. 7:1; 10:4-5; Eph. 5:27; I Thess. 5:23; I Peter 2:21-22; 4:1; II Peter 3:10-14; I John 1:7,9; 3:2-3,7; Jude 24; Rev. 3:21; 14:5). And the reason the investigative judgment has been delayed till the terminal moments of sacred history is because only then will God have at last assembled and prepared a people whose unqualified conquest of sin in their lives will forever demolish the charges of Satan against heaven’s government. The judgment has been held off till the end of time because only then will God have a global community of totally perfected saints.

During the 1990s a prominent, now-deceased pastor and revivalist also wrote of the intimate connection between the salvation and perfection controversy and attacks on the significance of 1844:

The dialogue concerning the investigative judgment and related topics within our church today seems primarily an attempt to settle on our beliefs concerning sin and righteousness and salvation. The investigative judgment, as a historical and eschatological event, is not really threatening….

It’s not our lack of understanding of how Daniel 8 relates to Leviticus 16 that causes the sleepless nights. It’s our lack of understanding of how the apparent bad news of the judgment relates to the good news of the gospel [##45|Morris L. Venden, Never Without An Intercessor: The Good News About the Judgment (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1996), pp. 7-8.##].

In the following statement Dale Ratzlaff likewise underscored the compelling cause-and-effect relationship between the salvation and sanctuary issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church:

Does the SDA doctrine of the cleansing of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment distort, undermine, or contradict the one and only new covenant gospel of grace? This is the acid test. All that has been said thus far—as important as it is—fades, in comparison with this test [##46|Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists, p. 319.##].

In like manner Gillian Ford, wife of Desmond Ford, wrote the following regarding the driving logic behind her husband’s rejection of the classic Adventist sanctuary message:

It was Ford’s emphasis on righteousness by faith that led him to see the necessity for reinterpretation of the SDA scheme of prophecy [##47|Desmond and Gillian Ford, For the Sake of the Gospel: Throw out the bathwater but keep the Baby (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, Inc, 2008), p. 153.##].

More recently, a new biography of the late Edward Heppenstall makes a similar connection between the righteousness by faith issues and Ford’s attack on the classic Adventist sanctuary doctrine:

The theme that seeded the 1980 conflagration (over the sanctuary) that swept over the church was righteousness by faith, the subject of Heppenstall’s correspondence with Brinsmead and Ford in the first days of 1978, and occasioned the Colorado (Glacier View) meeting [##48|Gilbert M. Valentine, Edward Heppenstall: Reforming Theologian of Twentieth-Century Adventism (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2025), p. 394.##].

The record of modern—and even not-so-modern—Adventist history is clear: the imperative of Spirit-empowered perfection in this life and the classic Adventist sanctuary doctrine are bound together by compelling logic. Reject the first, and tensions with the second become inevitable if not intolerable. The heart of the Adventist sanctuary debate is not exegesis, Hebrews 9, the year-day principle, or Antiochus Epiphanes. Rather, the role of sanctification and the perfecting of character in the saving process lies at the heart of this debate.

Conclusion: No Room in the Middle

The question of America’s entry into World War II, noted at the start of this essay, was intensely controversial in the years just preceding Pearl Harbor, as chronicled in a book some years ago titled, Those Angry Days [##49|Lynne Olson, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II (New York: Random House, 2013).##]. But few would consider the question controversial now, certainly not after the Allied divisions tore open the death camps in Nazi-occupied Europe. The lapse of time doesn’t always make issues quite that clear, but the decades that have elapsed since the onset of the Desmond Ford controversy fifty years ago have certainly gone far toward producing such clarity.

The article in question states at the beginning:

We are more than 40 years past that era. As the collective memory fades, the temperature has lowered. This is both good and bad. It’s good because we can hopefully look back with a more sympathetic view of all involved. It’s bad because uninformed people are vulnerable to the simple hero or villain stories that, thanks to the internet, will always circulate [50].

But you can’t blame the Internet for the polarization surrounding this issue; the divisions caused by Ford’s salvation theology were decisive long before the advent of the World Wide Web. It didn’t take long before the great majority of Ford’s followers recognized how incompatible Ford’s gospel views were with the pillars of classic Seventh-day Adventism in general and the Spirit of Prophecy writings in particular. One need only peruse the ex-Adventist newsletters, whether on or offline, and read the testimonies of those who have left our fellowship in the past several decades, and the common denominator uniting these voices becomes clear: Their spiritual journey away from Adventism, without any exception that I have found, began with the justification-focused, perfection-denying gospel theology of Desmond Ford and his fellow travelers.

The attempt by certain denominational scholars in the decades since Glacier View to reconcile the Fordian gospel with the investigative judgment doctrine—when viewed in the light of Scripture, the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy, simple logic, and the historical record—is found to be utterly meritless. Academia has a way of producing environments both sterile and artificial, in which hybrid theories and irreconcilable premises can co-exist in a fabricated harmony recognized as untenable by men and women in the practical, common-sense-driven thoroughfares of life. One wishes not to dispute the sincerity of the scholars praised by the article in question for their efforts in this regard [51], but the compellingly contrary witness of the inspired writings, and the acknowledgement of that witness by ordinary people attracted to Ford’s salvation theology, has made the efforts of these scholars an exercise in futility.

If, while the storm clouds lyricized in Kate Smith’s anthem still gathered across the sea [52], the Nazi threat had been directly challenged by the Allies, most historians recognize that the subsequent slaughter would have been averted. William L. Shirer, in his monumental history of Nazi Germany, writes:

All the generals close to Hitler who survived the war agree that had it not been for Munich Hitler would have attacked Czechoslovakia on October 1, 1938, and they presume that, whatever momentary hesitation there might have been in London, Paris and Moscow, in the end Britain, France and Russia would have been drawn into the war.

And—what is most important to this history at this point—the German generals agree unanimously that Germany would have lost the war, and in short order [##53|William L. Shirer, T (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), p. 423.##].

For similar reasons, I believe the doctrinal and moral crises that have afflicted Adventism in the decades since the Ford controversy first erupted would likely have been averted, almost entirely, had the denomination confronted directly the errors of Ford’s salvation theology during the 1970s, prior to Glacier View. Many forget that in 1973 and 1974, the General Conference executive committee in two consecutive Annual Councils endorsed key features of what has lately come to be known as Last Generation Theology [54]. In other words, more of a consensus on these issues than many have acknowledged was in the process of developing at high levels within the church before the Ford controversy broke.

Had the leadership of the church taken the initiative in the years that followed regarding the righteousness by faith controversy, demonstrating without ambiguity the clarity of both Scripture and Ellen White on the side of classic Adventism and against the teachings of Ford and his acolytes, the subsequent attack by Ford and others on the sanctuary doctrine and the Spirit of Prophecy writings would likely have been pre-empted. Such heresies as theistic evolution, identical gender roles in ministry, homosexual acceptance within the church, and a host of other departures from our Bible-based teachings would likely have been stopped before they acquired even a minimal constituency.

Despite what some persist in believing, these issues all go together. Recently an independent Adventist journal of strongly “progressive” bent offered equally strong evidence for a logical tie between perfection theology and the insistence by conservative church members on clarity in official denominational statements regarding such issues as creation/evolution and lifestyle standards:

An insistence on doctrinal purity manifests in disavowing alternative interpretations of the Bible or our doctrines. Doctrinal purists in the church define our beliefs in such detail and specificity as to close all “loopholes” that allow other understandings. The 2010 re-wording of our Creation dogma in Fundamental Belief #6 is an excellent example of this approach. After 2010, we are limited to the understanding that the universe was created “in a recent [euphemism for 6,000 years] literal six-days.” If this restrictive imagination of beginnings cause some to feel squeezed out of the church, that only proves the LGT (Last Generation Theology) point that those leaving were not pure enough….

But purity, whether in doctrine or lifestyle, is a “dog whistle” LGT advocates sound to mark doctrinal borders. What LGT supporters and hard-core conservatives are really getting at, when they prescribe purity as standard, is an attempt to narrow the Adventist spectrum. Their doctrinal goal is biblical literalism. As such, they see such books as early Genesis and Job only through that prism [55].

An editorial in another independent Adventist magazine of similar bias illustrated the same logical thought progression. Describing a previous discussion on the magazine’s blog site regarding creation and evolution, the editorial reported:

Person A was absolutely sure that science proved that life on earth was millions of years old, while Person B believed that life had been around for only thousands of years.

Neither side was convincing the other. So Person B said, “In the end it does not really matter what you believe in this area since we are saved by faith, not by knowledge. The important thing is that you have a relationship with Jesus and by faith have accepted His gracious offer of salvation.” [##56|J. David Newman, “Science Is Not Enough,” Adventist Today, Spring 2011, p. 3.##].

The editor, to his credit, lamented this response, yet appeared not to have considered the extent to which modern Adventist views of the gospel and salvation bear a direct responsibility for the presence among us of ideas and practices fundamentally hostile, not only to Adventism, but to the Christian faith itself. More recently, it appears that this editor and author—whose gospel theology is similar, if not identical, to Desmond Ford’s [##57|——”Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, Aug. 24, 2006, pp. 24-27.##]—has sufficiently weakened the imperative of doctrinal faithfulness in his own thinking so that supporters of an unscriptural view of origins could cite his thought as support for the legitimacy of their claim to be both Adventists and Christians. In his own, more recent words:

Doctrine does not save us. Jesus does. Doctrines are humans’ imperfect way of trying to understand God. There will never be perfect doctrine [##58|——letter to Proclamation!, April, May, June 2011, p. 30.##].

Any number of Bible texts press to our minds which explode the above author’s notion of doctrinal truth being non-salvational (e.g., Hosea 4:6; Matt. 4:4; John 8:31; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:16; James 1:21)—though of course doctrinal truth must be enshrined in the heart through conversion in order to do its saving work (Deut. 30:14; Psalm 119:11; Jer. 31:31-34; Rom. 10:8; 2 Cor. 3:3; Heb. 8:8-10). But it should be clear to any thoughtful observer that the assumption that Christian behavior can’t be perfect this side of heaven easily and logically invites the parallel conclusion that Christian doctrine can’t be perfect this side of heaven either.

Which means that if church members and scholars want to teach such heresies as theistic evolution or violate any number of lifestyle standards enjoined by the inspired pen, anti-perfection theology gives them the logic whereby such choices can successfully be rationalized.

The author of the article in question seems deeply enamored with a “nuanced” approach to the Ford controversy, as opposed to the polarity of “heroes” and “villains” [59]. Returning to the World War II analogy, this nuanced approach appears to have been popular in Britain during the years prior to that great conflict. In his magisterial biography of Winston Churchill, William Manchester draws a contrast between Churchill’s view of the Nazi threat and that of the English establishment whose unpreparedness and disdain for “warmongering” had left their nation virtually helpless in the face of the crisis they confronted in the spring of 1940:

England’s new leader, were he to prevail, would have to stand for everything England’s decent, civilized Establishment had rejected. They viewed Adolf Hitler as the product of complex social and historical forces. Their successor would have to be a passionate Manichean who saw the world as a medieval struggle to the death between the powers of good and the powers of evil, who held that individuals are responsible for their actions and that the German dictator was therefore wicked [##60|William Manchester, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Visions of Glory, 1874-1932 (New York: Dell Publishing, 1983), p. 4.##].

In America, not too long ago, we saw a similarly nuanced approach to evil, when one highly placed leader described a racist rally and its counter-protesters as “a display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides” [61]. This is how the perception of wickedness is mitigated and its danger minimized. Popular as this approach may be, even in the spiritual realm, it is one the true Christian must avoid.

In short, there is no room in the middle relative to the Desmond Ford gospel theology. It is wrong, from start to finish, on the basis of God’s Word. The church has lost untold numbers from its fold because of the desire of too many to please as many and offend as few as possible. Speaking of the early Christians who refused to compromise with the great apostasy then in motion, the modern prophet writes:

To accept peace and unity they were ready to make any concession consistent with fidelity with God; but they felt that even peace would be too dearly purchased at the sacrifice of principle. If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference, and even war [##62|White, The Great Controversy, p. 45.##].

Elsewhere she writes:

At times, with burning earnestness and words of terrible severity, Christ denounced the abominations He saw in the church and in the world. He would not allow the people to be deceived by false claims to righteousness and sanctity.

We are to unify, but not on a platform of error [##63|——Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, p. 259.##].

We cannot purchase peace and unity by sacrificing the truth. The conflict may be long and painful, but at any cost we must hold fast to the Word of God [##64|——Historical Sketches, p. 197.##].

REFERENCES

1. Barbara W. Tuchman, The March of Folly From Troy to Vietnam (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), pp. 32-33.

2. Anthony MacPherson, “Controversy and Crisis,” Adventist Review, Oct. 5, 2026 https://adventistreview.org/church-life/our-church/church-our-church/controversy-and-crisis/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_newsletter_Oct_9_2026&utm_content=feature2

3. Ibid.

4. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 95-96.

5. MacPherson, “Controversy and Crisis,” Adventist Review, Oct. 5, 2026 https://adventistreview.org/church-life/our-church/church-our-church/controversy-and-crisis/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_newsletter_Oct_9_2026&utm_content=feature2

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 523.

9. Ibid, p. 172.

10. ----SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1077.

11. Dear Aunt Sevvy, “Aunty, is Jesus waiting to return until Adventists become sinless?” Adventist Today, Sept. 19, 2022 https://atoday.org/aunty-is-jesus-waiting-to-return-until-adventists-become-sinless/

12. White, Evangelism, p. 385.

13. ----Review and Herald, Sept. 27, 1906.

14. Ibid, April 1, 1902.

15. ----Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 360.

16. MacPherson, “Controversy and Crisis,” Adventist Review, Oct. 5, 2026 https://adventistreview.org/church-life/our-church/church-our-church/controversy-and-crisis/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_newsletter_Oct_9_2026&utm_content=feature2

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. White, God’s Amazing Grace, p. 142.

21. ----Sons and Daughters of God, p. 45.

22. ----Counsels on Health, p. 51.

23. ----Messages to Young People, p. 35.

24. ----Faith and Works, p. 118 (italics supplied).

25. MacPherson, “Controversy and Crisis,” Adventist Review, Oct. 5, 2026 https://adventistreview.org/church-life/our-church/church-our-church/controversy-and-crisis/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_newsletter_Oct_9_2026&utm_content=feature2

26. Ibid.

27. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 824.

28. ----Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 212.

29. ----Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 128.

30. ----Review and Herald, June 11, 1889.

31. ----Sermons and Talks, vol. 2, p. 73.

32. ----Maranatha, p. 18.

33. ----Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 75.

34. ----Medical Ministry, p. 159.

35. MacPherson, “Controversy and Crisis,” Adventist Review, Oct. 5, 2026 https://adventistreview.org/church-life/our-church/church-our-church/controversy-and-crisis/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_newsletter_Oct_9_2026&utm_content=feature2

36. White, Messages to Young People, p. 35.

37. ----The Desire of Ages, p. 300.

38. ----SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1092.

39. ----Steps to Christ, p. 63.

40. ----Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, p. 311.

41. Dale Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists: An Evangelical Resource, An Appeal to SDA Leadership (Sedona, AZ: Life Assurance Ministries, 1996), p. 236.

42. “Interview With Smuts Van Rooyen,” Evangelica, May 1982, p. 14.

43. Ibid (italics Van Rooyen’s).

44. Brad McIntyre, “Investigating the Investigative Judgment,” Good News for Adventists (Auburn, CA: Good News Unlimited, 1985), p. 24.

45. Morris L. Venden, Never Without An Intercessor: The Good News About the Judgment (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1996), p. 7-8.

46. Ratzlaff, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists, p. 319.

47. Desmond and Gillian Ford, For the Sake of the Gospel: Throw out the bathwater, but keep the Baby (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, Inc, 2008), p. 153.

48. Gilbert M. Valentine, Edward Heppenstall: Reforming Theologian of Twentieth-Century Adventism (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 2025), p. 394.

49. Lynne Olson, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II (New York: Random House, 2013).

50. MacPherson, “Controversy and Crisis,” Adventist Review, Oct. 5, 2026 https://adventistreview.org/church-life/our-church/church-our-church/controversy-and-crisis/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_newsletter_Oct_9_2026&utm_content=feature2

51. Ibid.

52. “God Bless America,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_America

53. William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), p. 423.

54. “An Earnest Appeal from the Annual Council,” Review and Herald, Dec. 6, 1973, p. 1; “World Leaders in Annual Council Speak to the Church,” Review and Herald, Dec. 14, 1974, pp. 1,4-5 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a433da0e4c11b9a8d2cca3/t/5c869376ee6eb059ac52bb45/1552323448156/GC+1973-74+AC+Appeals.pdf

55. Matthew Quartey, “Embedding Last Generation Theology in Sabbath School Lessons,” Spectrum, Feb. 21, 2019 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2019/embedding-last-generation-theology-sabbath-school-lessons

56. J. David Newman, “Science is Not Enough,” Adventist Today, Spring 2011, p. 3.

57. ----“Can I Know I’m Saved?” Adventist Review, Aug. 24, 2006, pp. 24-27.

58. ---- letter to Proclamation! April, May, June 2011, p. 30.

59. MacPherson, “Controversy and Crisis,” Adventist Review, Oct. 5, 2026 https://adventistreview.org/church-life/our-church/church-our-church/controversy-and-crisis/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_newsletter_Oct_9_2026&utm_content=feature2

60. William Manchester, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Visions of Glory, 1874-1932 (New York: Dell Publishing, 1983), p. 4.

61. “Unite the Right rally” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

62. White, The Great Controversy, p. 45.

63. ----Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, p. 259.

64. ----Historical Sketches, p. 197.