Which proves that most anyone can write a book and get it published, especially by an SDA publishing house (unless it is found by the powers-that-be to be in egregious error).

In conversations with Ryan Bell about publishing a book on evangelism, I found that not everyone can get published. Evidentally several book proposals that were not "mainstream" enough got killed in committee somewhere.

See there's that labeling bit again.

Jared,

I dont know if you have thought about it before but the Pacific Press gets many requests to publish books from different people hoping to get their perspectives in print. They have far more requests that they have capacity even if they wanted to publish many of them.
If you were ( may be you are, I dont know) a SS superintendant you would be familiar with the often 6 month lead times for printing even SS materials.

I guess my main point is that particular operation has other issues with productivity aside of some committee somewhere screening "worthy" manuscripts.

It'd be interesting to see someone compare Wolberg/Lewis' treatise with Ty Gibson's See With New Eyes: The True Beauty of God's Character (2000, Pacific Press). I read the latter in 2007 and recall it leaning towards the passive-consequential end of the spectrum. (Sorry I can't do a quick summary myself because I loaned it out shortly afterwards and don't expect it to be returned.) I also recall a Mike Tucker series not too long afterwards in which Tucker also proposed a consequential stance to God's ending sin.

So a couple quick thoughts:

1. There are indeed more factors involved in publishing than "worthiness," factors like reviewers' backlogs and the time for print-production. But for a comparatively small house like PP and the other regional Adventist houses, substantial worthiness is a huge factor. Surely all Adventist publishers have the cautionary tale about Kellogg and his sanitarium summarized somewhere in their cubicles. There's far too much at stake for an Adventist house to publish scripts that the organization cannot doctrinally stand behind -- and it would be unprecedented for such a thing to occur. I can't imagine anything making it to the local ABC without having been vetted and unofficially authorized first. There are too many historical incidents for that to happen without somebody losing their corner office.

2. Experience with CQ suggests that lead-in time for SS Lessons is now closer to 18mths, and that may be even longer for the general Adult series. Committees have to factor in writing time (perhaps with international contributors), editing time, reviewing time, committee time, publishing time, translation time, and distribution time. Busy system. But content always prevails.

3. That said, it is possible that, as far as "God's character" goes, the committees have not decided where on the spectrum they'd like to sit until now. I strongly doubt that the Wolberg/Lewis book will even reference Gibson's book, though it was only published 8 years ago. Adventist writers, in SS Lessons and in published books, have a bad habit of not connecting their new conclusions with previous internal works on their subject. The effect of that habit is the assumption that what is now presented was always the authorized position -- not the "popularly held" position, mind you... just the authorized position. The nature-of-Christ books over the last 20-25 years are a prime example of this. And I suspect (prejudgment alert!) that the Wolberg/Lewis book will follow that pattern also...

I hope that the book will at least be aware that there is the "first death" and the "second death" that should be analysed. I am not aware of anyone who believes that God did not kill the firstborn of Egypt or did not send the flood killing masses of people or did not send fire to consume untold people in Sodom. So I assume the controversy that must be gaining attention is whether God kills beings resulting in the "second death". In a significant sense this depends on whether one understands that "The wages of sin is death", meaning that sin brings with it the result of self-extinction. Or that sin does not of itself produce death so God must interject his own active power to cause permanent death "proactively". In Genesis did God mean "If you eat the fruit I will kill you?" Or, "If you eat the fruit you will die because you will be cutting yourself off from life?"
For those who understand that someone's soul is immortal (most of the Christian Church I suppose), it totally makes sense to me that God would have to interject an "external" punishment in order to interrupt the immortality. For many of that persuasion, however, the result is not literally non-existence, but an eternally and literally burning Hell where people are consciously in torment as a result of God's punishment.
For those, like SDAs, that do not believe in the immortality of the soul there is more of a possibility for another view besides God's active punishment resulting in the second death.
If the Wohlberg book only discusses this topic concerning the First Death it will not be very important, nor particularly controversial. If he addresses the Second Death, and if that is controversial, then it will be worthwhile to see how it is resolved.

This is interesting, it is like a bunch of blind people talking about another group of blind people and discussing what they saw. Basically all we have here is history. Which means from a Progressive Adventist viewpoint Wohlberg has a beginning position of being a traditional Adventist. Which means he holds to the traditional and fundamentalist whereby if it says so in the Bible it most likely literally happened. In which case God did a whole lot of killing and in the case of the Flood a whole lot of overkilling. More liberal theologians would not hold to such concepts as a worldwide flood, scientifically viable nor really all that sensible as a way for God to interact with His creation even if they were behaving very badly.

So the Book I would expect will spend a good deal of time on the literal and assumed historical biblical narratives. God clearly kills in those. I would suspect there will be something about the ungodly "higher criticism" so that the truly faithful must accept God who gets mad and kills even when there would be alternatives which logically would be better.

Since the book is written from the traditional Adventist view point it will no doubt also deal with Ellen White and our eschatology. Ellen White can probably even supply examples where God killed which the Bible does not even have. And of course we have the unfortunate habit of assuming our eschatology is not simply predictive interpretation but literal and simply the way it will be. So if you assume that what the Adventist tradition says about the future is what will happen then again God must kill because that is the way we have laid out the future.

It becomes simple to see why such a book would be published by our Adventist publishing house. It asserts that what we have believed we still believe and that might be an important thing to publish because in so many ways such as the Investigative Judgment what we have believed we no longer believe. I posted on my blog an abbreviated section from Desmond Ford's recently posted online book demonstrating some of those changes. http://cafesda.blogspot.com

What I find interesting also is that if we are correct and everyone good and evil are resurrected they are resurrected to life as a supernatural act. So if you have wicked people raised to life again through a supernatural act of God would it not also take a supernatural act of God to end the previous supernatural act? So anyway you look at it if the life is caused by God then the cessation of that life is equally caused by God. I would not expect the above book to delve into the alternative views or the different ways of looking at things. Those books don't get published by Adventist publishers.

Just plain Universalism. Tom

Michael,
You're right in saying that there are other reasons for passing over a book than the fact that the publishers didn't consider it "unworthy". However in the case of the book I refer to, my understanding was that several committees rejected it on the basis of their feeling that the book either wouldn't sell to the Adventist masses, or that it was not quite in line with "mainstream" Adventist thinking.

KM,
One thing that I feel a bit bothered by is that books being billed as official church positions on issues oftentimes represent an issue in a very one-sided way. They often appear to make very complex and involved issues into clear-cut, thus-saith-the-Lord cases for whatever position they (vetting committees etc.) espouse. Reality is never that homogenous, and we do theology a huge disservice when we make reality black and white, cut and dry.

Ken,
I would suspect (without having read the book) that "The Character of God Controversy" will address instances in Scripture in which God killed (what you describe as the first death), as well as the final act of removing evil (which you might refer to as the second death). I would guess that both would help the authors advance their argument that God has killed before, and God will kill again, and that this is perfectly in line with God's justice and love.

This is the impression I get from reading the descriptions of the book I've seen at Pacific Press's website and the ABC website.

You may be surprised to know that there are plenty of scholars who do not agree that God killed in the Old Testament. An alternate view is that Hebrews attributed everything to God, both good and evil. So when violent occurences wiped out large chunks of people, the Hebrews attributed to God what God did not in fact actively cause, because to the Hebrews, every unexplainable act derived from God. Supernatural was the default explanation for the inexplicable. Be aware that this view is out there, even among Adventists.

RC,
Did you happen to read this?
The point that if God supernaturally raises the "wicked to life" in the resurrection, then God must also supernaturally "take them out" is one that Adventists have used frequently. What it overlooks is the (also) Adventist idea that humanity is mortal. Without God's sustaining intervention, humanity cannot live indefinitely. Those who contend that God does not actively, violently kill still believe that the wicked die, but that it is a result of separation from the life-giver, not an act of violent punishment on God's part.

Tom,
I don't know of too many on either side of the debate, whether those who believe that God will forcibly kill the wicked OR those who believe that God allows them to reap the consequences of their sins, that would agree that their positions amount to universalism.

In the end, most people believe that the wicked will die (as far as I can tell). The question is about whether God directly, forcibly and violently kills them (active) or whether God "turns them over" to the natural consequences of sin (passive).

There are those rare souls in Adventism who subscribe to Universalism, but they tend to be disengaged from this conversation.

Did you see Steve Wohlberg's website? Yikes--the graphics alone make me think "fringe" and definitely not "mainstream." It's no wonder I stopped reading PP books--they just don't look professional and/or get credible writers.
http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/

Is there someone who would be willing to share with us poor, ignorant souls how anyone has been able to determine God's character?

Pope warned us many years ago: "Presume not God to scan...." but we have continued to dissect, analyze and presume all sorts of descriptions of what we have never seen, touched, heard, or otherwise have any method of knowing.

How is knowledge of God obtained? How can anyone be certain it is not merely subjective desires or wishes and that anything said cannot possibly be validated? When someone speaks, knowingly, of God's character, by what method can he scrutinize and possibly verify?

Why can't we honestly admit we know absolutely nothing about a god other than what we have chosen to believe, much of it based on assumptions made by those who lived thousands of years ago? By what definition can their assumptions be trustworthy today? What other ancient stories do we hold with such absolute certainty as being unquestioned? Historians have studied hundreds of ancient texts in an effort to understand the perceptions of those people who lived then, but of all those, which ones are evaluated as being 100% truthful and which ones are simply myths that were commonly believed by a group of people long ago?

As far back in history as one can go, most people have adopted gods and credited or blamed them for the blessings or disasters that occurred. What makes the god the Hebrews eventually chose also our choice today? Monotheism was not firmly established until around 600 B.C. and prior to that time, there were multiple gods in the Hebrew nation that were regularly worshiped. Did they have an inner source or more developed cognition to be able to equate their god with the qualities Christians later began to accept? Why believe that the Hebrews were the only ones to own the one true god and reject all the others? Do we believe that today we can understand that god much better than they? What evidence do we have to qualify that today we can understand and explain God's character? Are we not limited entirely to what other humans, just like us, believed and wrote?

There are those rare souls in Adventism who subscribe to Universalism, but they tend to be disengaged from this conversation.

Posted by: Jared Wright | 31 August 2008 at 10:12

*******
I converse with a few such rare souls, and find them tremendously passionate about this -- and sometimes just as uncertain of how to participate in discussions with vocal annihilationists without being run off with pitchforks. All it seems to take these days is the "u-word," which in turn is often swiftly followed by the "h-word" ("heretic," that is, not "heterodox"). :)
I think our Adventist community misses a lot by not receiving these voices. And as someone once said "Where there are gaps, stereotypes rush in." At minimum we see this in the common failure distinguish between several distinct universalisms (eg. universal-ism, universal forgiveness, universal salvation, and universal reconciliation) -- none of which imply the same things about God, Christ, salvation, the afterlife, or man's responsibilities in the here-and-now, and none of which challenge eternal-torment or annihilationism in the same way.

I am familiar with a number of people who can only accept the idea of God as Universalists; anything else they find repulsive and demeaning to a God of love but also a God of unmitigated cruelty.

There seems to be no way out of this contradictory nature if acceptance of the traditional Christian message is to survive. How can it possibly be called "Good News"?

Man is clay until God breathes. If man rejects, denies, or auses God God turns away--breath leaves man and he becomes clay. Read Isa 33: 14-15. It is the Righteous not the wicked that dwell with everlasting fire! For my personal satisfaction,I reference the story in Daniel and the three worthies. The men who threw them in the furnace were immediately consumed. I see no everlasting burning except at the throne of God. Tom

Yes Jared I did read the article about labels. Even commented on it. You are entirely wrong. Labels are word pictures used to indicate more complex information. Fundamentalism in Chrsitianity has a very specific meaning which they apply to themselves, defined by their positions. The same is true of Adventists who call themselves traditional. I for one will continue to use language as it is with all those labels included.

As for the idea that Adventist use the supernatural life idea therefor God must take them out, that is actually rarely thought of in Adventists. Yes they are raised to life but we ignore that there is nothing natural about that life, it is nothing like this life. Even if we assume that the idea of life review per person is true, which many Adventist assume. Let us say 2 seconds per person we are talking about people standing around with no food or water or place to sleep for 5000 years. Probably a good dexcription of Hell but not one of any kind of natural life. So a supernatural life calls for a supernatural demise, how ever it happens it would fall into the category of being an act of God causing life to cease. Even if God when He gave the life only gave it for a specific period of time.

Comment on the resurrection of the wicked: Why bother to resurrect the wicked at all? After all, the wicked dead are, well, dead and not hurting anyone. They've lived, and they've died. One would think that it would be over. natural consequences of living, so to speak. Why on Earth bring them back? I think Nietzsche is right to quote Tertullian in "On the Genealogy of Morality":

"However there are other spectacles—that last eternal day of judgment, ignored by nations, derided by them, when the accumulation of the years and all the many things which they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! I`ll be full of exaltation then as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness with Jove himself and alongside those very men who testified on their behalf! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our lord burning in flames more fierce that those with which they proudly raged against the Christians!. . . Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voice will be more resonant in their own calamity (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror). The actors will then be easier to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but in the fire, unless I have no wish to look at their bodies then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord. . .Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart (1. Cor. 2, 9)? I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures (first and fourth tier of seats or, according to others, the comic and tragic stages). Through faith: that`s how it`s written."

So, we make god to be every bit as petty as we are. And not just the dear Early Fathers, but the gospel writers also have Jesus saying that his enemies will experience their humiliation at his return. Really sounds like "Nanananana!!!" Vengeance is not limited to the OT.

We have the Cross to tell us the Character of God. Why the guessing game about the end times and God's dealing with recalcitrants? We were sent to tell the Good News--not speculate on bad suppositions. We are so used to scaring people in the Church. We have forgotten the praise we owe the Godhead for the Covenant of Redemption. Tom

Elaine wrote: Is there someone who would be willing to share with us poor, ignorant souls how anyone has been able to determine God's character?
Although the cross is of course central to God's revelation of his character to man and to the universe, the whole bible is a record of God's dealing with mankind in many and various circumstances. As any good story teller knows, the best way to reveal character is to see the character in conflict. God is revealed in a lot of conflict. And of course the ultimate revelation of the character of God is the LIFE of Jesus who said near his death "If you have seen me you have seen the Father."

Of course to accept that revelation it is necessary to accept that the bible is more than just ancient literature and has something to tell us about God's dealing with humanity. But that's another discussion.

Mark

In the current political battles, it is disgusting to see each side trying to "spin" things by painting their opponent with things they don't really believe or with only part of their opponent's position.

I will be interested in whether this book on the character of God differentiates between people who don't think that God has to do anything to the wicked at the end for them to die, vs people who ALSO think that God never killed anyone. (And yes, there ARE lots of such people, many of whom are friends.) It would be very unfair, perhaps even deceptive, to claim that those who think that God doesn't have to add anything to the end of sin an sinners also claim that God has never had to take emergency actions in the biblical account. It is clear to me at least that he has had to do so - even if I accept that a great many of the places where he is described as doing such things is simply the Hebrews ascribing everything that happened to God. This is a nasty fight on this planet, and I think that God has had to get his hands dirty in order to preserve any chance for his children to "choose again."

Mark

Here is where things become muddled. Can Scipture be a revelation of God, be true, and yet at the same time be factually inaccurate in many points (by modern standards, not ancient standards). I think that many biblical scholars would say, "yes, it can be all of the above."

As for a God that needs to get his hands dirty at times, to take emergency actions, I begin to feel uncomfortable if what is meant by "dirty hands" and "emergency actions" is God's violence against humanity.

Here is why I feel uncomfortable. If we believe that violince is evil (do you see where I'm going?) and God commits acts of violence as a last resort for the sake of God's love, what we're really talking about is a utilitarian God who employs morally reprehensible methods to accomplish good ends. Perhaps I oversimplify. It is in those terms that I understand God's killing of so-called evil doers in Scripture.

It is an unsatisfactory picture of God and God's actions. I am open to the possibility of framing it differently, I just have not seen how to do it.

Maybe the Good News Tour can help me out this weekend.

Jared: you wrote, above: '... what we're really talking about is a utilitarian God ...'.

I would not use the U word here. As I understand the definition of utilitarianism it must be a consequentialist philosophy and hence would (by my understanding anyway) be inconsistent with omniscience.

I would prefer a phrase like 'a pragmatic God', where I don't see pragmatism as a synonym for utilitarianism. FWIW I have been greatly helped in my understand of these messy issues by the book 'Through the Moral Maze' by Dr. Robert Kane, a philosopher a U Texas, Austin. In the book Kane talks about the concept of a moral sphere. Inside of it one can act in ways aligned with Kant's Categorical Imperative. But many of this world's events are outside the sphere. Then responsive moral action is harder - and also harder for a bystander to understand.

Mark, your question has, at least partially, been answered by Jared:

" Can Scipture be a revelation of God, be true, and yet at the same time be factually inaccurate in many points (by modern standards, not ancient standards). I think that many biblical scholars would say, "yes, it can be all of the above."

Now, if one agrees with his statement, it allows the reader to be much more perceptive, even questioning, than that of the literal reader who accepts everything written therein as factual, based on our standards of today.

But, if one chooses to adopt the view that all ancient literature (nearly two millennia ago, at least), was not held to our standards of literal, accurate, historical biography or narrative, he will read the Bible in a very different way.

So, one's viewpoint will depend on which of the two interpretations above, that he relies upon.
However, with either one, there will be more problems than can adequately be answered:

1. Adopting the literal and factual truth of the Bible, how does one handle the many contradictions when describing the same events?
How does one answer the question of where did Jesus' parents go immediately after his birth? To Nazareth or to Egypt? Did Herod order all the firstborn killed when no secular historian ever mentions such a draconian measure that would surely not escape other historical writers?

2. If one adopts the idea that all ancient literature was never designed to be accurate and factual, but was written to express ideas, concepts, beliefs that were common during their lives, but perhaps questionable today, inevitably questions will be raised. Did Jesus spend 40 days on earth after his resurrection or was he taken upward immediately afterward? Was he an apparition that could appear and disappear at will, or walk through walls or locked doors? Because ancients honestly believed in demons and stationary shining stars (over Bethlehem) were those displays described (the curtain torn in the temple, and earthquake at Jesus' death) told to bring great emphasis to an event that could not be explained by ordinary reasons?

Those are only a few questions regarding the proper reading of any ancient writings. We do use such criteria when reading all other ancient writings of gods, miraculous conceptions and births, but because we call it the "Word of God" it is never to be questioned or examined under such a microscope. Why not?

"Of course to accept that revelation it is necessary to accept that the bible is more than just ancient literature "

I thoroughly disagree. It is most germane; in fact, absolutely essential if one is to plead a case for God's character to ask: what are your sources? Otherwise, what one individual believes is no more or less irrelevant than what another believes.

When I read any nonfiction book, I always go to the back for both bibliography and mark the endnotes and constantly refer to them with any comments made by the author to determine: What are your sources?

While this was not necessary for ancient writings, evidence demonstrates that many curious and improbable events were told, some most preposterous.

Realizing that was a common form with writers only a few hundred years in the past (and the usual for older writings), why should we not question the accuracy or faithfulness of accounts written simply because they have been bound into a book called the Bible; a book which was not accorded full and complete compilation and status until approximately the 2nd century A.D.? (Although the Septuagint (ca. 200-300 B.C. was the source for NT quotations.) And for the NT, it was not officially adopted and many more writers were eliminated than retained, until the third or fourth century A.D.

What other ancient books ca the same time are you willing to read at face value and accept everything written therein, no questions asked?
If so, I can refer you to a host of writers contemporary with the Hebrew Bible for your perusal. Homer? Herodotus? Even Josephus? Eusebius? Each took great liberties with facts.

Greetings to all,

I just discovered this thread and now know that you are discussing my book, "The Character of God Controversy." Well, I am happy for this and hope that people actually read it to learn my true position.

Hopefully, you will deem the book to be "Fair and balanced" (borrowing from Fox News).

Sincerely,

Steve Wohlberg
Author, The Character of God Controversy
www.whitehorsemedia.com

Steve, I appreciate the comment, and I hope to have a copy of the book soon to get a better idea of where you are coming from. I hope that it will be more fair and balanced than Fox News...

Looking forward to continuing the conversation on this very important and timely topic. Thanks again!

-Jared

Hello Jared,

I'm looking forward to talking with you too. I welcome all interviews. Our COG book isn't an attack on any person, and no names are mentioned. Plus it has lots of heart-warming information about God's love - including a few stories about my own kids. My son Seth just turned four, and little Abigail (Abby) is 8 months. Being a dad is great!

I hope we can talk soon.

Warm regards,

Steve Wohlberg

That neither Steve Wohlberg, a TV and radio evangelist, nor Chris Lewis, a surgeon, is employed as a church theologian is noteworthy given the way that this book is being billed as an official Adventist response to a very weighty theological topic. While the task of reading and interpreting scripture is a task in which every Seventh-day Adventist should participate, the Seventh-day Adventist church expends vast resources in providing Adventist theologians the most academically rigorous training possible. Such academic rigor should certainly be a characteristic of every major contribution to the key theological issues of our time.

"The Character of God Controversy" is too trivial a debate for any true Biblical scholar to unravel. The most effective response only requires a basic understanding of Second Century Gnosticism, Medieval Moral Influence Theory, The New Age interpretation of the Cross, Adventism's recent indebtedness to the pantheism of John Harvey Kellogg and a Bible.

Jared

How to you assess COG with Universalism? Tom

Schube
If you're arguing that the SDA church shouldn't outsource theological analysis to people who lack the skills to do so, I agree. Unfortunately, trained theologians within the SDA church for a generation have stayed away from the burning issues of the day to avoid the fate of Desmond Ford. The reason the church has ended up with demagogues and amateurs doing its heavy theological lifting is a direct result of this being a culture that puts orthodoxy (i.e. tradition) above Scripture.

As far as Kellogg is concerned, it's unfair to label him a pantheist. He was not. The only reason he is still called one, is that EGW leveled that charge against him. Kellogg vehemently denied the libel. The church responded by saying that his unwillingness to confess, in the face of EGW's charge, proved that he didn't believe in the SOP, and that was the official reason given by the Battle Creek chuch, when he was excommunicated in 1907.

Kellogg seized upon statements by EGW (e.g. in the book Education) that nature was not a self-contained system that automatically produced its effects. Apple trees produced apples because the power of God, pulsating through nature, induced it to produce apples. Kellogg carelessly stated that in that sense you could say that God was in the tree. What we call natural law, Kellogg argued, was God's immanence in nature, his power that suffused everything he had created.

Pantheism was simply a convenient excuse to get rid of an excentric power player in the church, who knew way too much about EGW to be intimidated by her supposed infallibility.

Kellogg was a pantheist in the same way that Obama is a Muslim.

Another distortion, widely believed and promoted by the SDA church. History is told by the victors.

Elaine,

I believe that Kellogg promoted “scientific theories which are akin to pantheism” but not because Ellen G. White said so. I have an intimate understanding of what Kellogg taught. It's true that Kellogg vehemently denied the charge. So what? The court system is full of accused criminals that refuse to acknowledge their guilt. It's certainly possible that an accused person is guilty once in a while. Graham Maxwell denies that his theory is just a mixture of Second Century Gnosticism, the medieval moral influence theory, the New Age interpretation of the cross and Kellogg's denial that God executes judgment. However, all these charges are easy to prove. For example, John Harvey Kellogg wrote: "The idea that God inflicts pain, or that pain is in any sense an arbitrary or retributive punishment, is a notion altogether foreign to a proper conception of God." – The Living Temple, p. 441. Maxwell teaches that "the death that results from sin is not an imposed penalty."

Kellogg was a pantheist in the same way that Obama is a Muslim.

No Aage. Kellogg was a pantheist in the exact same way that Maxwell is a pantheist. According to them, the true God that we must fear is Natural Consequence.

Unfortunately, trained theologians within the SDA church for a generation have stayed away from the burning issues of the day to avoid the fate of Desmond Ford.

I love the way that Dietrich Bonhoeffer argues against their self-serving sentiment with a great quote from Luther.

" 'How very good and pleasant it is when kindred live together in unity!' (Ps 133:1). ...
The Christian cannot simply take for granted the privilege of living among other Christians. Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies. In the end all his disciples abandoned him. On the cross he was all alone, surrounded by criminals and the jeering crowds. He had come for the express purpose of bringing peace to the enemies of God. So Christians, too, belong not in the seclusion of a cloistered life but in the midst of enemies. There they find their mission, their work. 'To rule is to be in the midst of your enemies. And whoever will not suffer this does not want to be part of the rule of Christ; such a person wants to be among friends and sit among the roses and lilies, not with the bad people but the religious people. O you blasphemers and betrayers of Christ! If Christ had done what you are doing, who would ever have been saved?' " Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 5, pages 27-28.

So, I have a question. Can God be less moral - less forgiving than what he asks of us? Must we forgive 70x7 which equals infinite, but God will reach a point where he can't take it any more and will, as he did in Noah's day, kill the lot? What will get God to the point where he will say to the 80 year-old; and the 50 year-old; and the 20 year-old; and the 10 year-old; and the infant; or the embryonic baby still in the womb, I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR SIN and bring the flood of destruction upon them equally? I fear we anthropomorhize God too much. He is not, after all, this super guy perpetually sitting on some throne scrutinizing the universe until he's fed up with it all because he hasn't been given enough attention. I can say, along with J.B. Philips, MY GOD IS BIGGER THAN THAT.

--
No Aage. Kellogg was a pantheist in the exact same way that Maxwell is a pantheist. According to them, the true God that we must fear is Natural Consequence.
Posted by: Shubee (not verified) | 20 November 2008 at 7:03
--

Right Kellogg was not a pantheist nor is Maxwell. Of course neither of them said that natural consequences are God. But no doubt that is what Eugene thinks, though just as the analogy used in the comparison of Kellogg and Maxwell he has to begin with a faulty assumption to arrive at his even more faulty conclusion most of his thinking is of the faulty assumption category. Go ahead and give them your website Eugene. It is good for a laugh.

So Aage, Shubee, rc and others... how to we get Adventist theologians to engage? Do we offer them immunity or absolution?
or both?

Repeatedly on this venue questions have arisen that need to be seriously dealt with above and beyond the lay level. Do we not have scholars who are willing to take up these issues - do they not see them as important - or is fear really the motivating factor?

"Go ahead and give them your website Eugene. It is good for a laugh."

Hey Ron...

I'm not even part of this conversation, but I couldn't help but notice this remark. Last week, you asked Tom to give you specific examples of where he felt you were belittling him.

Well, this particular remark may not be directed at Tom, but here is such an example. It would be far better to stick to the issues, and leave your own personal disdain for someone's views as just that...personal and private.

Thanks...

Frank

So Frank it is okay for Shubee (eugene) to call Graham Maxwell a Pantheists, to say that Maxwell's true God is natural consequences but my pointing out Eugenes faulty logic is just too belittling.

I Know of Eugene's work apparently you don't so go ahead and read his insipid article The "Spiritualistic Philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell" http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm
In which he takes a few quotes from "a course in Miracles" and attributes similar statements by Maxwell to demon spiritualism. Rather like saying do unto others from the Bible is spiritualism because other religions also say do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Then be sure to read his other garbage:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/

You might like these also:
--

Eugene Shubert's Repartee with Pharisees
Wicked and Adulterous SDAs ask for a Sign
Reporting a Church Disturbance
Revival Thwarted at RevivalSermons.org
Seventh-day Adventism is Like First Century Judaism p. 1
Seventh-day Adventism is Like First Century Judaism p. 2
Seventh-day Adventism is Like First Century Judaism p. 3

--

I think that reporting a church disturbance has to do with a lawsuit of some sort he is working on because he was kicked out of a church, but I don't know for sure not having the stomach to read too much of his tripe. Oops that might be too belittling eh.

[yes Ron, using words like 'insipid', 'garbage', 'tripe' is over the line. I will leave your post up so this addition can be read. If Eugene's comments & articles are of the quality you infer then make your case on the evidence and stop the pejorative words. If not your posts will be deleted. You can make your points in a more civil manner than this. - website editor]

Hard to know when something said here is tongue in cheek or totally serious. I tend to take most with a grain of salt. Open forums of this nature seem to draw all kinds. I really thought Shubee was joking...

And surely the everythingimportant site is a joke - right?

Sadly it is not a joke. But you better be careful calling it a joke may get you deleted.

A question to author Steve Wohlberg, if I may.
Steve, what do you understand about the standing before God of your little Abby?

You may ask questions, Wohlberg may not reply. He has been disengaged from this conversation, though it would be nice to have his input on some of our conversations here!

Donna
Your question is important: "... how to we get Adventist theologians to engage? Do we offer them immunity or absolution?
or both?"

As long as salvation is seen as function of theological perfection, it won't happen. The reason why the SDA church is authoritarian is that it takes tremendous pressure and control to keep a doctrinal consensus from falling apart. Christianity, ideally, should be a fellowship around a person, not a graduate course in theology.

What we often overlook is that authoritarianism is simply a control mechanism driven by the need to preserve uniformity of doctrine. If Christianity was modeled on Jesus, who put deed above creed, like the good Jew he was, there wouldn't be a need for the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that has characterized the SDA church.

The Jews only excluded one thinker from Judaism in modern times, Baruch Spinoza in the 17th century, and they've regretted it ever since. It is all driven by theology.

If Christianity was modeled on Jesus, who put deed above creed, like the good Jew he was, there wouldn't be a need for the kind of heavy-handed authoritarianism that has characterized the SDA church.

Wasn't the Christian Church in the First Century modeled on Jesus? It didn't silence the heretics of the church (2 Timothy 2:17-18). The reason for so many Adventists approving of heavy-handed authoritarianism has to do with preferring the spirit of popery above the Spirit of God.

Kellogg seized upon statements by EGW (e.g. in the book Education) that nature was not a self-contained system that automatically produced its effects. Apple trees produced apples because the power of God, pulsating through nature, induced it to produce apples. Kellogg carelessly stated that in that sense you could say that God was in the tree. What we call natural law, Kellogg argued, was God's immanence in nature, his power that suffused everything he had created.

If you're jumping up and down with great delight when you take a shower because you think that God is in the water and you’re splashing God filled water all over yourself, then I think it’s fair to call you a pantheist.

When the theology of the final judgment is reduced to a joyous excitement about the death process and you're jumping up and down because God doesn't kill, it's just Natural Consequences, then that's the exact same trap that Kellogg and his associates fell into.

Schubee
Can you name one known thinker in the world of theology--preferably somebody trained in the field--who agrees with you that Pantheism (or what you seem to think it is) is the key that unlocks the mystery of church history and explains what's wrong with Adventism? One person, Eugene, other than yourself.

Entire religious traditions have arisen from an obsessive interest in single Bible verses or a fixed idea (Adventism, Mormonism, Christian Science, for instance). To you pantheism is the unified field theory of religion, as far as I can judge. Anybody out there who shares that point of view, or are you a new denomination all to yourself?

Can you name one known thinker in the world of theology--preferably somebody trained in the field--who agrees with you that Pantheism (or what you seem to think it is) is the key that unlocks the mystery of church history and explains what's wrong with Adventism? One person, Eugene, other than yourself.

Many Seventh-day Adventists believe that Ellen White was professionally trained by receiving more than 2,000 inspired dreams and visions directly from God. Can you think of any theologian in Adventism that has produced more Biblically solid theology than Ellen White? She connected Kellogg's pantheism (the alpha) with a similar endtime crisis (the omega). There is plenty of source material available to confirm that Adventism's Past Pantheism is exactly what I said it is. Kellogg's theology connected God's presence with life. Maxwell's theology connects God's forsaking and turning away in the final judgment with death. Are you telling me that you don't recognize any similarity between those two constructs?

Suppose you only have a picture of half a face (say the left side). That's the alpha. Take the mirror image of that half face. That's the omega. Bring the two pictures together and you have a perfect whole—a complete object—a naturally symmetric face. The omega is an astoundingly perfect completion of Kellogg's heresy.

To you pantheism is the unified field theory of religion, as far as I can judge.

I have written on many of the great theological riddles of Adventism where the pantheism of Kellogg or Maxwell doesn't appear: Daniel, Revelation (3 scenarios, the 3 angels' messages, 7 churches), including the human nature of Christ and the Trinity. Isn't this thread for discussing the “Character of God Controversy”?

Schubee
So,apart from claiming support from EGW, nobody to vouch for your views?

So, apart from claiming support from EGW, nobody to vouch for your views?

I believe that the original question asked was "Have any of the scribes and Pharisees believed on him?"

I don't know of a single person in the hierarchy that defends the right with unswerving fidelity but here are three non-clerics that strongly agree with my theology:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php?p=5578#p5578
http://www.everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1191
http://www.everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=930

I gave my E.G.W. library to the Augusta Church School so I cannot cite the exact wording. But my rercall suggested the E.G. White stated that the omega of apostasy would be to make of none effect the "Spirit of Prophecy" ego: E.G.White.

Certainly, the concept of a "perfect final generation" reflecting the character of Christ perfectly comes mighty close to pantheism.

Why doesn't anyone cite Edward Heppenstall's book The Man Who Is God?

Christianity means accepting no substitutes or look alikes!

Tom

Schubee
I suppose that if Jesus started with twelve disciples and ended up with millions, you may yet turn your three disciples into a great army. But I think you need a more winning message, something closer to the one Jesus preached, if your movement is going to prosper. Pantheism just is not a reality that afflicts or affects people in our part of the world. Neither the Pope nor Jan Paulsen are secret pantheists (now, if you're talking Illuminati, that's entirely a different matter--or not) and no matter the interpretative contortions you go through, they're not going to turn into pantheistic Gregor Samsas.

Eugene, I'm not a church member (I once was), but I can assure you that whether your fellow church members work for the church or not, they are people like yourself, people who try to make sense of life and their faith. They may be very wrong about things, but it's silly to suggest that they're Valdemortians bent on destroying eveything that's sacred. Even back in the day there was no Omega of apostasy, just people who agitated an egocentric prophet.

E.G. White stated that the omega of apostasy would be to make of none effect the "Spirit of Prophecy"

That is certainly a part of the omega prophecy and it has already been fulfilled. The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy make it clear that Jesus instituted and ordained the system of animal sacrifices. This is a truth that The Counterfeit Character of God Movement adamantly denies.

Certainly, the concept of a "perfect final generation" reflecting the character of Christ perfectly comes mighty close to pantheism.

I don't see that belief as being related to pantheism, Kellogg or Maxwell. The Manifest Sons of God doctrine is seen as a legitimate threat by many evangelicals but, from what I've read on the internet, they don't believe that Adventists are teaching that heresy.

I think you need a more winning message, something closer to the one Jesus preached, if your movement is going to prosper.

My message is identical to what Jesus taught on every level. "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Seventh-day Adventist leadership, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." cf. Matthew 5:20.

Pantheism just is not a reality that afflicts or affects people in our part of the world.

Do Adventists in your part of the world seek a better understanding of Daniel, Revelation (7 churches, 3 scenarios, 3 angels' messages), including the human nature of Christ and the Trinity?

I can assure you that whether your fellow church members work for the church or not, they are people like yourself, people who try to make sense of life and their faith.

Church members are not all the same and the Seventh-day Adventist church is not a monolithic structure. It is composed of seven spiritual factions. Have you ever read The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism?

Pantheism just is not a reality that afflicts or affects people in our part of the world.

Do Adventists in your part of the world oppose sincere efforts to expose the powers of darkness and false doctrine in the church?

I hope that the book will at least be aware that there is the "first death" and the "second death" that should be analysed. I am not aware of anyone who believes that God did not kill the firstborn of Egypt or did not send the flood killing masses of people or did not send fire to consume untold people in Sodom. So I assume the controversy that must be gaining attention is whether God kills beings resulting in the "second death".

I believe that's a rather empty riddle to analyze. From the perspective of omega pantheism, I believe that Maxwell's riddle is absolutely identical to answering the following questions:

If I pull back on a bowstring knowing that if I let go, an arrow will eject at high velocity and pierce your heart, and if I do so and you die instantly, did I kill you? Or is your death purely natural, due to the elastic kinetic energy of the bow delivered to the bowstring via tension, which is thereby imparted to the arrow via contact acceleration? Am I innocent because it takes zero energy to release a "taut" string? Would it help if I were to cry, "How can I give you up, How can I let you go?"

"I am not aware of anyone who believes that God did not kill the firstborn of Egypt or did not send the flood killing masses of people or did not send fire to consume untold people in Sodom."

So which planet is your home? There are millions who do not believe such fiction. There is not one confirming evidence for any of those occurring.

For those who still believe there was a real Odsseyus, a Croesus, Atlantis, and the wicked witch of the West, they may be the few remaining ones who also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy--for which there is equal evidence.

Shubee
My part of the world is Virginia, and our struggle here has mostly been to expose the Republicans to the consequences of their politics and policies. It may not reach your standard of exposing the powers of darkness, but Virginia, as of now, is tentatively a hopeful blue, and I think that's a great beginning.

EGW projected the Canright scandal into the future in the form a prophecy about the very last deception of Satan would be to make of none effect the testimonies (letter 12, 1890). You claim to see the fulfillment of this "prophecy." Let me point out the following:

1. The SDA church, unfortunately, has not rejected EGW as a divinely authorized interpreter of Scripture. People like me, who used to be members, have. That's different.

2. EGW was not concerned about pantheism subverting the church. The pantheism charge was simply a convenient libel to get rid of Kellogg. Go read the exclusion report written by the Battle Creek SDA church in 1907. Pantheism is nowhere mentioned. It was all about EGW's authority.

3. If Satan has nothing worse to hurl at the Christian church in the latter days than destroying confidence in the writings of EGW, he is not the clever demon we all thought his sulpherous majesty was. For one, it means that Baptists and Tom's Presbyterians don't have much to worry about, since they never believed in her in the first place.

Unless, of course, you're going to argue that all non-SDA Christians are already minions of the devil, and that EGW-believing Adventists are the only people on earth who have not succumbed to the wiles of the evil one. But you wouldn't go there, would you, Mr Shubert?

The foundation of Maxwell's theology is essentially Second Century Gnosticism:

“A rejection of all legal categories pertaining to God, leaving sin as ignorance and salvation as a healing of the mind through accurate information about God and His purposes, was the core teaching of the Gnostic movement in the second to third centuries, and is the basis for most Eastern religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism.” —Richard Fredericks, Ministry, March 1992, pp. 6-10: The Moral Influence Theory—Its Attraction and Inadequacy: The distorted attraction of one popular theory of the atonement.

“The name ‘Gnosticism’ is given to all those different theories of the universe which professed to be Christian, but amalgamated elements of Christian belief with Hellenistic ideas regarding an intermediate world of superhuman beings between the Supreme One and men, and regarding the human soul as a part of the Divine which had fallen into the dark and evil world of Matter. Each Gnostic sect claimed to have a special ‘knowledge’ (gnosis) to communicate, by which the Soul could get deliverance from matter and win its way back to the Upper World. Most of the Gnostics represented the God of the Old Testament as an inferior Being, often a Being hostile to the Supreme God, ruling in the lower world, from which ‘knowledge’ enabled the Soul to escape.” — The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, article 785: ‘Gnosticism.’

“The basic premise common to the many varieties of Gnostic belief was that since God is good and the material world is evil, he cannot have created it” (David Christie-Murray, A History Of Heresy, p. 21). The basic premise of Neo-Gnostic Adventism (and Maxwell) is that since God is good and retribution is evil, then God has nothing to do with meting out punishment in a final judgment.

“These systems were philosophical in that the problem which concerned all Gnostics was the reconciliation of the existence of evil with God who is good; religious because they offered salvation”, salvation by gnosis. (Does that sound familiar)?

Shubee

Graham Maxwell made only one mistake. He chose The University of Chicago for his doctorate against the advice of the "brethren". They and you seem to have been after him ever since. Did you know that Rick Rice also went to Chicago?
Now there is some far out thinking!

I met Graham in the Seventh grade. I attended his S.S. class as South Side SDA church. I was a fellow faculty member at LLU. He was my primary advocate for membership on the Board of Trustees of LLU. He is a very private person because of people like you. If I ever had a Christian friend, Graham Maxwell would be just after my Dad. Disect him for all you are worth and it will not change the truth that Graham Maxwell is a clarian call to the gospel plus nothing.
P.S. Your concept of Grostic thinking is 180 degrees out if you catagorize Graham as a Gnostic. His entire teaching ministry has been directed toward the unigue God/Man Jesus Christ as a friend and primary adovocate. It is The Editorial staff of the Review past and present that have a strong Gnostic infusion. The primary examples are Ken Woods and Herbie Douglass if one must put names to the genre. Tom
Tom

If I really were one of the ancients, I would insist that the meaning is in the message not the narrative, and I would be surprised - very surprised - if anyone took my storytelling as a string of sequential facts.
I am relieved that Elaine understands, but those seeking to expose truth in the detail, rather than the idea would never find meaning in my world.
Most ancients would agree with me - Greek, Celtic, Indigenous... and Hebrew.

Tom,

You don't seem to recognize Maxwell's fundamental assumption that God is good and retribution is evil. How is that possible?

Shubee

It is obvious you never heard Graham, you may have listened but not understood. Grahams message is simply: "Safe in the Arms of Jesus, Safe on His gentle Breast!" Of course, he doesn't subscribe to retribution. God isn't trying to get even. He is already way ahead! Graham is simply saying: If man finally and completely rejects the source of life, God will reluctantly conceed to that rejection. The absence of the life giver is eternal death. Not a vengeful act but an act of ultimate sorrow. God's wish is that all might live in peace and worshipful adoration of a benign Creator/Redeemer/Friend. Graham's message is simple: Satan, not God is your adversary. The Investigative Judgment would have us believe otherwise that God is looking for those He can Zap! Graham says not so: God is looking for the least sign of acceptance of His Son--and then saying that's my man or my women or my child.

One can live for eternity with a God like that, without fear, but in loving adoration. If you don't find that in Paul, in the Letter to the Hebrews, or in the Book of Revelation, I feel very sorry for you. Tom

Of course, he doesn't subscribe to retribution.

So A. Graham Maxwell does hold to the fundamental assumption that God is good and retribution is evil. Do you care to defend the pantheistic implications? God will not punish the wicked or make them undergo any kind of suffering: It would be a monstrous evil for Him to do so. If nature does all this, then it’s OK. How is this not exalting nature above God?

Shubee
I wish you well in fighting your battles against all odds, but even you will be aware that the bloddiest battleground is within your own head
Tom
Thanks for the personal Maxwell bio
World
"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!" (Nietzsch)

Shubee

I have no quarrel with you or Graham. There is a text that reads something like this in the King James. Vengence is mine saith the Lord. Graham merely points out that God's allowing man and angels to reject His life sustaining power is vengence enough. God has no need for thumb screws or any other devilish tools of torture. If you want them in your tool box be my guest--just stay away from my door--while I agree with Graham, I don't know if I have the same level of Grace. So don't use anything stronger than a keyboard on me, O.K. Tom

I have no quarrel with you or Graham.

But of course you do Tom Zwemer. I wanted to know more about Maxwell's pantheistic understanding of God as it relates to Nature and Natural Consequences and you retaliated by representing me as believing in a sadistic God that uses thumb screws and other devilish tools of torture.

Shubee

My quarrel,is with any unwarrented, unsubstantiated,
broad brush acussation against a life long member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, A leading scholar and teacher of the Gospel in the post WWII era, a contributor to the SDA Bible Commentary. It is not personal, it is generic. My reference to thumb screws etc. was to put a face on the word retribution--and the human use of the term throughout the Dark Ages, even as recent as Salem of Cotton Mather's day. Methods that would still be in use today by many "good churchmen" , if it were not for the U.S. Constitution and the civil laws stemming from that document.

Pan means involving all or including all. Theism refers to the existance or presence of god. Thus, pantheism means to believe in the prevasive in-dwelling of god in all living organisms. Beyond that, the term takes on the view of each person's view of the nature or definition of "their" god.

Graahm, as I understand him, believes it is unscriptural to depict God as a vengeful "get even" retaliatorydeity. He stands with Christ, who in the telling of the parable of the Wheat and the Tares said: "An enemy hath done this!"

The History Channel that headlines natural disasters as "The Wrath of God" perpretuates this false picture of God.

Graham has no use for the concept of a "Left Behind Scenario"
so popular as an expression of God's wrath against unbelievers. Graham blieves with the prophets of old that the "everlasting burnings" surround the throne of God. Only the redeemed can walk in that firy furnace.

My quarrel is with any propositional "truth" that is contrary to the plain word of Scripture--such as the concept of a "perfect final generation." Now there is a blatant pantheistic concept.

The humor of it all is that dispensationalists believe they can hasten the "rapture" and Seventh-day Adventists believe that man can retard the return of Jesus. Thus, according to your use of the word pantheism, a fundamental belief of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is unadulterated pantheistic.

Graham sees the law of God as the ethos of Heaven not as a penal code. In Heaven, one does not take the name of God in vain, One does not build idols, one honors their parents, one does not kill, lie, lust, or covet.

If anyone finally and completely rejects that Life Style and the Creator/Redeemer God who established that ethos--the consequences are the severance of life force eternally but sadly. God finds no pleasure in it but is willing to accept that rejection and its consequences. The Maxwellian thought is there is joy in Heaven over one sinner that repents and sorrow over every sinner who stubbernly refuses to repent.

It is the devil,not God,who goes around seeking whom he may devouer!

It was the devil, not God who put the boils on Job!

The Lord is my shepard..He restoreth my soul! That is the God I learned from my dad and was reinforced by Graham. Tom

Graham has no use for the concept of a "Left Behind Scenario" so popular as an expression of God's wrath against unbelievers.

When and where did A. Graham Maxwell repudiate his earlier teaching that God is a God that forsakes and God turning away is the mechanism that triggers natural consequences, i.e., God's wrath?

Shubee
I don't know. I do know that except for Pine Knoll publications, Graham did very little formal publication because of critics. You would have to listen to hours of his tapes to find his candid thoughts. I have no knowledge of his repudiation of any early teaching. I do believe that his thoughts matured and became more measured, but I don't believe his basic theology changed. Nor do I believe that it needs change or repudiation. His papers: "Safe to Save" and "How God Won His Case" are vintage Maxwell. His contibutions to the commentary of Romans is a work of great
understanding and love. I respect Graham for his quiet courage, tolerance, and careful but loving guidance of the young mind seeking answers to eternal questions.

In an aside, I also found his sister's teaching and guidance in the principles of education and leadership in academics a wonderful boost to my career. The Maxwell family while not always agreeing were never disagreable. They were steeped in the concept of nuture and skilling in the Socratic method without stooping to intimidation.

My personal testimony is that I have gained the most in my life's journey from Edward Heppenstall, C.B. Haynes, H.M.S. Richards Sr., Graham Maxwell, and Paul Heubach within Adventism. The rest have been pastoral writers from a diverse
denominational background. I must mention Fred Craddock from Emory and John R.W. Sott. Finally, Graham, as we all, see through a glass darkly--thanks be to God we have an eternity to get it clear and sharply focused. In the mean time, I find it a great honor and priviledge to call Graham my friend, mentor, and colleague. Tom

When it comes to doctrine, Seventh-day Adventists should place a greater value upon the teachings of Ellen White than upon those who do not have the gift of prophecy. This is not to say that there is no new light for God's people; but when so-called new light obviously contradicts the light that has gone before, then we have a duty to reject the new theories. One reason that God gave our denomination the Spirit of Prophecy was to protect us from every wind of doctrine that would be blowing as we near the end of time. In spite of Dr. Maxwell's mild manner and his beneficial contributions to this denomination, anyone with an open mind must admit upon close examination that some of his theology directly contradicts - and blatantly so - the clear teachings of Scripture and Ellen White. Many in the church today brush aside Ellen White's writings as mostly her opinion, but those who accept her teachings as divinely inspired light from our Creator reject all theories that without doubt contradict her writings.

E.J. Waggoner and A.T. Jones once had a special message for God's people, but both were later taken in by false teachers. Jones became ensnared in the so-called visions of a young girl named Anna (whom Ellen White declared to be a false prophetess); and Waggoner fell victim to the pantheistic theories of Dr. J.H. Kellogg. We cannot be too careful in accepting any teaching that contradicts inspiration; and yet there are Adventists who are totally charmed by Dr. Maxwell's false ideas regarding the character of God, the atonement, the blood of Christ, and other crucial doctrines as established by Scripture and the writings of Ellen White. Why are his ideas on these subjects false? Because they directly contradict inspiration.

Ellen White fought a constant battle against fanaticism because she knew that every fanatical person and movement that arises within the church creates disgust in the world that we are trying to reach. Surface readers of Dr. Graham Maxwell’s theories often delight in the image of a God who only wants to be our friend; but below the surface lie many sinister heresies that strike at the very core of Christianity and create disgust among those who need to know the truth about our loving Creator.

Dr. Maxwell has joined the list of men like Jones and Waggoner who have promoted error that is dangerous to the soul. Here is but a small sampling of His odd teachings: there is no reason to fear God, even for those who know they will be lost; there is no power in the blood of Christ; God is not directly involved in the final destruction of the wicked in what is termed the second death; the hell that brings about the second death is not literal fire that burns the wicked to ashes but only the consuming nature of God’s glory; the atonement has nothing to do with Christ paying the penalty for our sins; Jesus did not have to shed His blood in order to save sinners; and it is dark speech for Christians to use the term "justification." Every one of these theories taught by Dr. Maxwell blatantly contradict inspiration.

It should be upsetting to Seventh-day Adventists to know that Dr. Maxwell denounces the Christian doctrine of justification as “dark speech,” for Ellen White taught that justification by faith is the third angel’s message in verity. By denouncing the term justification as dark speech, Dr. Maxwell would brush aside the commission given to Seventh-day Adventists to preach the third angel’s message. Those who see that some of Dr. Maxwell's theories are in direct conflict with inspired light have a duty to warn others to not be taken in the snare.

When seen in their true light, many theories of Dr. Maxwell resemble more the theology to be found in modern day New Age theology than the doctrines established by the Advent movement. For a detailed exposé of Dr. Maxwell’s fanatical theories where his own words reveal his distaste for established Adventist doctrine, please read the article referred to by Shubee titled "The Counterfeit Character of God Movement."

Dwight

An excellent partisan defense of a failed theology based upon faulty exegsis of Daniel and the benediction of a self proclaimed prophetess. Never-the-less, you never heard or read a disparaging word about E.G. White from the mouth or pen of Graham Maxwell. If he has any doubts he certainly has kept them to himself.

The great gulf between Graham and classic Adventist thought is that classic Adventist thought is built upon fear and Graham's presentation is based upon love, compassion, and Grace. His is a theology based upon a "bend reed will He not break nor a smoldering flax will He not quench." His students arrived full of fear and doubt and leave full of hope, joy, and confidence in the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Such graduates were not easily bulldosed by power point hyper ventilation. Yet they remained strong leaders and teachers within the denomination.

Do a track record on any Bible teacher in SDA colleges and test the staying power 10, 20 years out. I believe you will find Graham's students among the strongest defenders of the faith.

I have friends in their 90's, too old to attend Church who listen to Graham's SS lessons on tape and remain faithful to
the church in tithes and offerings and in defense of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

I just happen not to be in that category. But, Graham had nothing to do with my decision to find other church fellowship.

Frankly your condemnation is ill placed and serves no useful purpose. Particularly your reference to Waggoner and Jones is poorly considered and way off the mark.

Those who I know best who find fault with Graham are hide bound legalists with a check list mentality.

Here ends my defense of Graham. I leave his critics and him in the hands of a compassionate loving Savior. May we each and all find Grace in His sight. Tom

When it comes to doctrine, Seventh-day Adventists should place a greater value upon the teachings of Ellen White than upon those who do not have the gift of prophecy.

I just ask that pastors and teachers of salvific truth have courage. Ellen White wrote: "My message will become more and more pointed, as was the message of John the Baptist, even though it cost me my life. The people shall not be deceived." And much of Ellen White's writings throughout her life were devoted to precisely that work. Tom Zwemer has testified that "Graham did very little formal publication because of critics." If that testimony is true, then I don't respect Maxwell's cowardice one bit. Maxwell knows that no scholar is going to listen to countless hours of audiotapes on unsystematic theology to try to figure out what his message is. I believe that there is something unethical about disseminating new doctrines in the church in such an underhanded manner.

What did Ellen White say about that?

“In the very midst of us will arise false teachers, giving heed to seducing spirits whose doctrines are of Satanic origin. These teachers will draw away disciples after themselves. Creeping in unawares, they will use flattering words, and make skillful misrepresentations with seductive tact.” Special Testimonies, August 27, 1903.

There is something very creepy about “creeping in unawares” and making “skillful misrepresentations with seductive tact.” I've personally heard Maxwell exalt Ellen White publicly on numerous occasions so as to make the audience believe that he is a traditional Adventist. Yet Adventist Pastor Larry Christoffel told me that behind closed doors among scholars, Maxwell openly admits that the sacrificial system came from paganism and was never instituted by God. This kind of duplicity has to be exposed.

Shubee

Grace is sufficient even for critics like you and me. You think Graham Maxwell is in error, I think Herbie Douglass is in error. I expect we will have eternity to exalt the Glory of Redemption together with Paul, Graham, Herbie and
E.G. White--even Canright. Tom

Dwight Turner said:

Dr. Maxwell has joined the list of men like Jones and Waggoner who have promoted error that is dangerous to the soul. Here is but a small sampling of His odd teachings: there is no reason to fear God, even for those who know they will be lost; there is no power in the blood of Christ; God is not directly involved in the final destruction of the wicked in what is termed the second death; the hell that brings about the second death is not literal fire that burns the wicked to ashes but only the consuming nature of God’s glory; the atonement has nothing to do with Christ paying the penalty for our sins; Jesus did not have to shed His blood in order to save sinners; and it is dark speech for Christians to use the term "justification." Every one of these theories taught by Dr. Maxwell blatantly contradict inspiration.

Dwight or Eugene, help me out if you could on some of these points. You say that Maxwell puts forward these false doctrines. If he is wrong, then what is the right answer? What do we tell our kids?

1) there is no reason to fear God, even for those who know they will be lost

Does this mean we should be scared of God? If so, why?

How about those who don't they will be lost? Should they be scared of God?

2) there is no power in the blood of Christ.

Does this mean we need the actual physical blood of Christ? That the actual blood has the power?

3) God is not directly involved in the final destruction of the wicked in what is termed the second death

Does God have to physically torture and kill the wicked in the end? Are the wages of sin, execution by God? Is that what you are saying? What is atonement? Is it making amends, or is it making peace?

4) the atonement has nothing to do with Christ paying the penalty for our sins

To whom is the penalty paid? Does God demand a blood sacrifice? If Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, why will anyone be lost?

5) and it is dark speech for Christians to use the term "justification."

Is not the term "justification" a Latin term? Can not the the Greek term that is often translated "justification" also be translated righteousness? Is not the use of "justification" most often used in a legal sense?

Speaking of dark speach, when did Jesus not talk in dark speech? How about John 16:25,ff? God loves us and we need no go between between us and God. Is that not what these verses are saying?

6) the hell that brings about the second death is not literal fire that burns the wicked to ashes but only the consuming nature of God’s glory

Does the fire that burns the wicked up, also kill the wicked? The Bible dies say that where ever sin is found, our God is a consuming fire. Fire in the Bible is often as something psychological, but obviously the end time fires can be that right? It has to be physical, right?

From your position, what is the Good News?

In spite of Dr. Maxwell's mild manner and his beneficial contributions to this denomination, anyone with an open mind must admit upon close examination that some of his theology directly contradicts - and blatantly so - the clear teachings of Scripture and Ellen White.

How is it possible that no thought leader has ever encountered a church member that was absolutely mesmerized by Maxwell's spiritualistic philosophy and didn't think that there was something demonic about it?

I am confident that there is a conspiracy of silence and that persons at the highest echelons of the church hierarchy have decided on a policy of non-interference regarding Maxwell's teachings. I believe strongly that this compromise goes back to the time when Neal Wilson was the president of the General Conference. Edward Heppenstall informed Wilson of the danger in Maxwell's heresy and Wilson said that nothing should be done about it. Larry Christoffel told me this. Also, Bill Shea mentions an understood policy of silence in the hierarchy regarding Graham Maxwell in a letter to Eugene Shubert.

The developments of these last days will soon become decided. When these spiritualistic deceptions are revealed to be what they really are,--the secret workings of evil spirits,--those who have acted a part in them will become as men who have lost their minds. Ellen G. White, Battle Creek Letters (1928), p. 124.

I believe that we are already there.

For a detailed exposé of Dr. Maxwell’s fanatical theories where his own words reveal his distaste for established Adventist doctrine, please read the article referred to by Shubee titled "The Counterfeit Character of God Movement."

I sure do hope that Wohlberg didn't praise those in The Counterfeit Character of God Movement like Martin Weber did in Who's Got the Truth, Making sense out of five different Adventist gospels, (1994).

Here are some pertinent quotes from Weber's book that tell me that if you want to get published by an Adventist publishing house, you have to soft-pedal the truth:

"Obviously, all of these spiritual leaders have much to contribute in terms of gospel truth, or they wouldn't have their large followings of thoughtful Seventh-day Adventists." p. 5.

"Reading Servants or Friends makes obvious why Graham Maxwell is so popular with thousands of thoughtful Adventists." p. 15.

"Perhaps all of us can agree with what we have seen so far in Dr. Maxwell's teaching. Many of the kindest Adventists I know cherish what he says. Among them are half a dozen of my best friends. The loving quality of their lives shows how his teaching has enriched their walk with God." p. 16.

"Seventh-day Adventists owe deep gratitude to Maxwell." p. 17.

"To summarize: The name Graham Maxwell is well-known and beloved by Adventists around the world; he is too significant a thought leader to ignore." p. 33.

"Whatever our differences, Dr. Maxwell and I are friends. He has invited me to visit in his home, and the next time I'm in Loma Linda I plan to accept his invitation and enjoy his fellowship." p. 34.

E. G. White has a wax nose. One can cut and paste and make almost any doctrinal point you want. For example: Take any one of the compilations: and note the bias of the compilers. Graham Maxwell, always quotes E.G. White to strengthen his point; a common practice throughout Adventism.
As I pointed out previously, The substance of Graham’s Christianity is found in two simple papers available through Pine Knolls. “Safe to Save” and “Now God Won His Case.”
The case made against Graham are always based upon hear-say accounts, usually twice or three times removed from any primary source or documented citation.

Graham is well within the pale of Basic Christianity—were that Seventh-day Adventism were ALSO! Eh, THERE IS THE RUB!

In an aside: I was walking with Graham from the Medical Center to his office one day. In our conversation, I mentioned how much I appreciated Edward Heppenstall's article in the Signs entitled: The Centrality of the Cross. Graham replied: Great! have you written Ted and told him? I said no, not as yet. I did write and got a wonderful reply.

Some years later, Dr. Heppenstall gave a Wednesday evening talk in the Youth Chapel at the University Church on the Brinsmead Movement. He gave a very linear, clear, and kind critique of Bob et al. Knowing the character of the man, I find the assertion that Heppenstall "warned the brethren about Graham" unbelievable.

If anyone every made a case for the Character of God as lived by Jesus Christ on the dusty roads of Israel it is Graham Maxwell.

Tom.

The case made against Graham are always based upon hear-say accounts, usually twice or three times removed from any primary source or documented citation.

The strongest case that I know of against Graham Maxwell from primary sources is The Spiritualistic Philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell. Which of the many quotations do you not believe?

Shubee

If you suggest that the highlighted passages are from Graham Maxwell, I say Amen to each.

God invites "Come unto Me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give your rest."

"Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet, you shall be white as snow."

"Suffer little children to come after Me and forbid them not for such are the Kingdom of Heaven."

"A bend reed will He not brake, nor a smoldering flax will He not quench."

The Gospel is not built on fear but upon love--For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that who so ever believeth upon Him shall have eternal life."

Which of these to you disagree with?

Compare with E.G.White: "Soon no one knows how soon, the judgment will turn to the living!" She tells a loving story in Desire of Ages and then blows it all in the final chapters of Great Controversy. Tom

P.S. Graham teaches from Desire of Ages. The Church builds its case on Great Controversy--what a shame for a Church that claims proprietary rights to Rev. 14: 6. Tom

If you suggest that the highlighted passages are from Graham Maxwell, I say Amen to each.

Ah, that is your mistake. I highlighted a very Maxwellian explanation but the source is from a channeled spirit guide that dictated the following to a medium for the New Age book, A Course In Miracles. That evil spirit only pretended to be Jesus.

“The Message Of The Crucifixion”

“For learning purposes, let us consider the crucifixion again. I did not dwell on it before because of the fearful connotations you may associate with it. The only emphasis laid upon it so far has been that it was not a form of punishment. Nothing, however, can be explained in negative terms only. There is a positive interpretation of the crucifixion that is wholly devoid of fear, and therefore wholly benign in what it teaches, if it is properly understood.

“The crucifixion is nothing more than an extreme example. Its value, like the value of any teaching device, lies solely in the kind of learning it facilitates. It can be, and has been, misunderstood. This is only because the fearful are apt to perceive fearfully. I have already told you that you can always call on me to share my decision, and thus make it stronger. I have also told you that the crucifixion was the last useless journey the Sonship need take, and that it represents release from fear to anyone who understands it.” — A Course In Miracles, Vol. 1, pp. 84-85.

“The message of the crucifixion is perfectly clear:

‘Teach only love, for that is what you are.’”

“If you interpret the crucifixion in any other way, you are using it as a weapon for assault rather than as the call for peace for which it was intended. The Apostles often misunderstood it, and for the same reason that anyone misunderstands it. Their own imperfect love made them vulnerable to projection, and out of their own fear they spoke of the ‘wrath of God’ as His retaliatory weapon. Nor could they speak of the crucifixion entirely without anger, because their sense of guilt had made them angry.

“These are some of the examples of upside-down thinking in the New Testament, although its gospel is really only the message of love. If the Apostles had not felt guilty, they never could have quoted me as saying, ‘I come not to bring peace but a sword.’ This is clearly the opposite of everything I taught. Nor could they have described my reaction to Judas as they did, if they had really understood me. I could not have said, ‘Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?’ unless I believed in betrayal. The whole message of the crucifixion was simply that I did not. The ‘punishment’ I was said to have called forth upon Judas was a similar mistake. Judas was my brother and a Son of God, as much a part of the Sonship as myself. Was it likely that I would condemn him when I was ready to demonstrate that condemnation is impossible?

“As you read the teachings of the Apostles, remember that I told them myself that there was much they would understand later, because they were not wholly ready to follow me at the time. I do not want you to allow any fear to enter into the thought system toward which I am guiding you. I do not call for martyrs but for teachers. No one is punished for sins, and the Sons of God are not sinners. Any concept of punishment involves the projection of blame, and reinforces the idea that blame is justified. The result is a lesson in blame, for all behavior teaches the beliefs that motivate it.” —A Course In Miracles, Vol. 1, pp. 87-88.

Don't you just want to shout and rejoice that even demons agree with you and The Counterfeit Character of God Movement on the fundamentals of Maxwell's gospel?