::: My Homepage :::

1. Introduction: a brief overview of the book and the review itself.
2. Description: not a summary, paraphrase, or synopsis of the book, but rather an
analysis of the approach and methods of the author, the organization of the book,
and its major conclusions.
3. Evaluation: a careful demonstration of the strengths and weaknesses of the
book, including how well the author achieves his purpose, how and why the
author is convincing, whether and how the author is biased, and whether there
are unsupported presuppositions or errors of fact, logic, or interpretation.
4. Conclusion: a summary of your evaluation of the book, and suggestions for how
this book could be used.

Our next example of the proper format for a book review is taken from the web
site for the Indiana State University School of Education in Bloomington IN. A few
additional requirements have been left off due to the fact that they are specific to
the education department's requirements:

____ Description of purpose of the work and main focus of author
____ Description of intended audience
____ Identifies major assumptions of the author
____ Explains primary arguments and evidence used to support main focus of
work
____ Explains major strengths and limitations of work
____ Identifies sources of confusion
____ Explains broad applications of work
____ Provides personal response to the author
____ Uses direct quotations sparingly
____ List of references for citations

This may surprise the reader, but I feel the need to ask, Doesn't it seem that
someone with a more objective view of the investigative judgment than Des Ford
would be the best qualified person to write a book review on the subject?
Nevertheless, on the Adventist Today web site, Ford "reviews" my book--and
deems it a total loser. Nothing new.

Interestingly the contents of Des Ford's "review" shows that this is not a review
in the true sense of the word. Ordinarily, a book reviewer does more that respond
to a book. At a minimum the review gives a brief summary of a book's contents,
and then renders a critical assessment of the author's work and its points. How is
the reader to know what the book is about and whether he wants to read it if the
reviewer doesn't at least provide the information necessary to make that
decision? But in the present case, all of Desmond Ford's comments are strictly
negative and he doesn't offer even the briefest summary. Why is this, and why is
it called a review instead of what it really is, a mere rebuttal?

Be that as it may, here are a few responses I would like to offer in response to
Ford's "review" of my book:

First, Des calls the eleventh chapter the crucial chapter. If any part of a book on
Bible doctrine is crucial, it is that portion which provides the basis, or the proof, for
what is maintained in the rest of the book. I wrote chapter eleven to show how
my discoveries fit with the traditional presentation of the investigative judgment.
So, it is no wonder Ford finds the traditional view in the last chapter. However, let
it be noticed that singling out the last chapter allows one to more easily avoid
grappling with the force of the foundational evidence found in the earlier
chapters.

Secondly, I would point out the curious fact that Ford argues with me over what
he should know we agree on. We both believe that God doesn't require an
investigative judgment in order to "know them that are His." Jesus, of course, is
not ignorant of who are truly His. So, I ask, why does Des make it seem as if we
disagree?

It seems that His argument at this point is not with me but is rather a monologue.
I was astonished by his suggestion that my references to Revelation 2:23; Psalm
11:4,5; 1Chron 29:17 were "invoked" to suggest that God must have an
investigation of the saints to "fill out his ignorance by extended research." I was
astonished, I say, because I had categorically denied that such was the case, or
even could be the case. Yet such a categorical denial obviously either went
unnoticed by the astute Dr. Ford or else he chose for some reason to ignore it and
write as if he had struck a major blow. Could it be that Dr. Ford didn't actually
read major parts of the book?

Thirdly we come to this other strange matter: In his ADVENTIST TODAY rebuttal
of my book Dr. Ford stated that there was nothing new in the Silencing of Satan.

Let us put the his contention to the test. In 1980 Ford wrote, "There are no clear
Scriptures that teach the investigative judgment." (D. Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day
of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment, p. 293.)

In 1980 in his book God and His Sanctuary Dr. C. Mervyn Maxwell, while defending
Adventism's investigative judgment doctrine, stated, "Although the terms are not
used in the Bible, for convenience we can speak of phases of the final judgment
that deal with ‘investigation, . . . examination . . ." (op. cit., p. 88). In other
words, Maxwell tells us that we are not going to find the Bible stating that God
investigates believers.

In 1993 in his book The Sanctuary Roy Adams indicates his agreement that there
are no scriptures that clearly teach that the judgment is investigative in nature.
Adams wrote, "It has not always been easy to provide a straightforward
demonstration of the particular notion of an investigative judgment in Scripture. .
." (op. cit., p. 125) He also stated, ". . . We venture to suggest that ‘investigative'
. . . is not absolutely indispensable . . ." (op. cit., p. 124)

Adams suggested that there had been an unwise waste of a "vast amount of time
and energy expended in years of controversy and debate over the use of the
expression ‘investigative judgment.'"(op. cit., p. 124) So, Adams saw new
terminology as a solution to this problem. He writes, "The expression ‘pre-Advent'
. . . is currently finding growing acceptance. . ." (op. cit., p. 124)

It seems that each of these men concluded that there is a lack of any Bible
passage that states that God investigates believers–and that this investigation is
part of believer judgment. Now note this carefully: If any Seventh-day Adventist
pioneer, or any of the later Adventist theologian, had come across passages of
scripture that clearly stated that God investigates believers, one of these three
men (Ford, Maxwell, Adams) would have known it–especially professor of
Adventist history, C. Mervyn Maxwell. Therefore, it seems that if anyone found
such evidence, it would be reasonably seen as new evidence in favor of the
investigative judgment. That is exactly were the Silencing of Satan is helpful and
precisely where Dr. Ford misses the mark in rating my book. In the Silencing of
Satan it is shown that there are many passages of scripture that state quite
clearly that God investigates believers. This has been news to many. Here is the
comment of one such person,

"Brad, I finished your book. Obviously because I studied theology at both La
Sierra and Andrews, I am well aware of the arguments for the Investigative
Judgment. In The Silencing of Satan however, you plowed new creative ground. I
found the (sic.) especially enlightening the first chapters where you show that
although the exact word 'investigate' is not used in modern translations, there is
plenty of evidence in the Greek and Hebrew that shows that many texts in both
the New & Old Testaments could be translated using the word 'investigate.' This
is new work that I have seen no where else . . . "- Rick Kuykendall (Former SDA
pastor)

How can Ford circumvent the theological significance of these biblical statements
in order to maintain that there is nothing new in the Silencing of Satan? He does
so by rendering them mere "anthropomorphic" references to God.

However, these are not equivalent to the divine body parts Ford mentions. These
are statements made by Christ Himself or His prophets about God's plan of
salvation and judgment. If Des is really serious about using this anthropomorphic
argument against Revelation 2:23; Psalm 11:4,5; 1Chron 29:17--and all the many
other places in the Bible that say the same thing-- then, to be consistent, there is
quite clearly no revelation of God in the whole Bible. According to Ford's way of
thinking, any time God's prophet says something that runs counter to our
viewpoint, we may ignore it by rendering it merely an "anthropomorphic" example
of God "bending down to lisp to a little child." One could dismiss any and every
doctrine by this means. The only other option is to use this hermeneutic
selectively. But that is just another way of making the Bible student's personal
biases rise above inspiration in authority. It invites one to determine what
portions of the Bible are valuable and which are irrelevant according to one's
favorite systematic theology. That is neither fair nor reliable.

The fourth response I have for Des returns to the matter of objectivity. Several
months ago I heard Des tell about being a young minister and winning a debate
against a non-SDA minister. This minister had been such a problem for other SDA
ministers in town that the Adventist leadership was exultant over Des' success.
The president wrote a letter which was sent around the Conference that
proclaimed, "Ford slays dragon." Desmond Ford is a gifted man in many respects.
He is my superior in many ways, but being a gifted debater has not made him
kinder and more objective, but less.

In Des' "review" of the Silencing of Satan there is not an indication of serious
consideration and objectivity but of debate. Unfortunately debate is about
winning, not about finding truth. Evidently one tactic of debate is to purposely limit
the number of times that you admit your opponent is right. And, you must never
agree that your opponent's arguments are as reasonable as your own.
Therefore, debate is not about discussion that leads to better understanding as
much as it is about being convincing and victorious. Ford's answer to my book is
couched in the spirit of refutation, not review and analysis. Hence, I suspect that
Des Ford's objectivity in any discussion of the investigative judgment doctrine is
compromised. I also suspect that this is the biggest hurdle to solving problems
some people have with the history and doctrine that came out of the 1844
experience.

I thank Des for his kind estimation of my love for my fellow man. It makes it easier
to respond to his call to abandon the investigative judgment doctrine with this
counter invitation:

Dear Des,

With great humility and sincere love I call upon you to carefully consider again The
Silencing of Satan and all the books written since 1979 that contain answers to
your objections. I ask you to humbly admit that there are many sound responses
therein. I am not suggesting that you agree with them–just that you admit that
they provide reasonable answers that are worthy of serious consideration. Admit
that reasonable people could be expected to retain the doctrine of the
investigative judgment based on those answers. Affirming your views to be
correct is not as much a problem as your denial that other's views might be as
credible as your own. Adapting our own words to the occasion, it is "not so much
what people affirm as what they deny" that distinguishes the subjectively minded
from the objectively minded individual.

Des, I am rather surprised to find that you meet the evidence of today's Adventist
theologians that support the investigative judgment with the argument that
scholars long ago determined that the INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT doctrine has
no foundation in scripture. And to hear you tell people that Clifford Goldstein has
no credibility because he is not a scholar, is nothing more than avoiding their
evidence by attacking their person. That may be a good tactic of debate, but is
not worthy of your great abilities, it is not a gracious Christian attitude, nor is it
sound reasoning.

While I cannot celebrate the pain brought upon the church, and upon you, over
the investigative judgment issue since 1979, I believe that God brought some
good out of it. As I told you face to face some months ago, I think you did our
church a favor in alerting us to the objections that some have raised over this
doctrine. It is far better that we ourselves face these things openly and work
them out satisfactorily than be embarrassed. It is better not to be humiliated by
having to admit we did not even know our own history of problems with this
doctrine, and that we therefore never grappled with the issues.

Sincerely,
Bradley R. Williams