The Confessing Seventh-day Adventist

nicsamojluk,

From what you’ve written, I’m certain that you don’t have the slightest understanding my words. I view John Harvey Kellogg as a prophetic archetype foreshadowing Graham Maxwell. Your objection is, therefore, without merit. Almost no one had the discernment to recognize Kellogg’s pantheism. It’s an undeniable fact that, in Kellogg’s book (Living Temple), there’s a plethora of allusions to a personal God instead of a diffused force in nature. You need to discern the subtlety. I’m saying that Maxwell is a pantheist to the exact same degree as was John Harvey Kellogg.

You asked for more evidence. Ellen White wrote plenty about the alpha and omega of deadly heresies. I have posted new light on this subject. There’s a thread highlighting Maxwell’s spiritualism. There’s a discussion thread about Maxwell’s removal of Christ’s substitutionary atonement, justification by faith and Christ’s High Priestly intercession. My posted insights on pseudo-Adventism’s pantheism [1] [2] are genuine and true. If you refuse to believe what God has already revealed on these topics, then perhaps the only impressive evidence you will ever have to persuade you is the fiery expectation of judgment (Hebrews 10:27).

You are a marvelous proof of the supernatural. Your time spent listening to Maxwell shows an adverse effect. I take it as proof that you are beyond the power of ordinary persuasion and that you are under the influence of demonic philosophy.

I have described Maxwell’s gospel as a joyous excitement about the death process and you didn’t even flinch. I have clearly highlighted the pantheistic overtones of the gospel you believe in yet you didn’t protest or cringe.

You have no sense of the danger you are in. You need to spend less time doubting the truth and put all your energy in reaching out to the only One who has the power to break the powerful deception you are under. Please don’t delay doing this for a single minute because your soul is in jeopardy.

After re-reading these coments of yours which I quote:

If you refuse to believe what God has already revealed on these topics, then perhaps the only impressive evidence you will ever have to persuade you is the fiery expectation of judgment (Hebrews 10:27).

I take it as proof that you are beyond the power of ordinary persuasion and that you are under the influence of demonic philosophy.

Please don’t delay doing this for a single minute because your soul is in jeopardy.

My simple answer is "It is well with my soul."

I haven't had the privilege of sitting at Kellogg's feet. Therefore, I cannot speak with authority about his alleged pantheism.

The moral influence theory of atonement is not completely without merit in the scriptures, but it cannot be the ONLY means of atonement. Certainly Jesus' death was a demonstration of God's love, but it had to be substitutionary to make any sense. Reducing the atonement to a display, and judgement to an accident stemming from our own actions is not good theology.

The idea that God does not destroy really is a problem, as we have discussed on other threads. It leads to Universalism, and the denial of the judgement, as unfortunately I have seen in some of those I have met.

Pantheism is a serious charge, and it should not be leveled at a man who has dedicated his entire life to the faithful service of God and the church without allowing his peers to render their opinion about this issue. Justice demands this! Do you know whether this was done? Pantheism is defined by Webster as:

Doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe.

I sat at Graham Maxwell's feet for many years and I have never heard him equate God with the forces and laws of the universe. Thousands of those who have listened to him could assert the same. Maxwell believes in a personal God who rules the universe, and he also believes in a personal Savior, who is the Son of God. All his writings and his numerous lectures, which are on record, testify of this.

His belief that the sinner will reap the natural consequences of his choice is a separate issue that can in no way negate his belief in a personal God. He could be wrong on this, but it doesn't make him a pantheirst. I know Maxwell quite well. I do not know his accusers.

Persons who have been seduced by the doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1) are not even competent enough to define the accusations made against A. Graham Maxwell. You keep demonstrating that you have no understanding of the charges. I have every right to use the word pantheism in the same sense that Ellen White used it to describe the doctrines of John Harvey Kellogg.

I have not prevented the Seventh-day Adventist church or Maxwell's peers from rendering their opinion about Maxwell's pantheism or even on the spiritualistic teachings of Maxwell.

Nic Samojluk wrote:Pantheism is a serious charge, and it should not be leveled at a man who has dedicated his entire life to the faithful service of God and the church without allowing his peers to render their opinion about this issue. Justice demands this! Do you know whether this was done? Pantheism is defined by Webster as:

Doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe.

I sat at Graham Maxwell's feet for many years and I have never heard him equate God with the forces and laws of the universe. Thousands of those who have listened to him could assert the same. Maxwell believes in a personal God who rules the universe, and he also believes in a personal Savior, who is the Son of God. All his writings and his numerous lectures, which are on record, testify of this.

His belief that the sinner will reap the natural consequences of his choice is a separate issue that can in no way negate his belief in a personal God. He could be wrong on this, but it doesn't make him a pantheirst. I know Maxwell quite well. I do not know his accusers.

Nic, I think his point is limited to one fairly specific area. Kellog saw life as God's presence, in everything basically. He is charging that Maxwell sees death as the removal of God's presence. Eugene is saying that Maxwell completes the picture of Kellog's understanding of life, with a similar understanding of death.

I can't claim to know Maxwell personally, so I won't comment on his particular influence. But I have met many who claimed these views and they do often show great disregard for the plainest scriptures, though on every other topic they seem to follow the Bible. Some have gone over to universalism and have no concept of the judgement whatsoever. They have done this because of their belief that God kills no one, but withdraws his presence. From there some go on to rationalize that any act of judgement is merely refining and God not only doesn't kill anyone directly, but no one will really die. I realize that Maxwell does not go that far himself (or I have never heard anyone claim he does). But I have seen some who were influenced by the teaching take it to that extreme.

I know that the views of moral influence and God's not destroying the wicked have both been attributed to Maxwell. To what degree he holds these views I don't personally know. But the one can tend to destroy a belief in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, the other can lead to the belief that everyone is saved. In that respect, they are quite dangerous.

Eugene applies the statements about death to Kellog's formula and levels the additional charge of pantheism. I guess I can see where he is coming from. I don't necessarily see God withdrawing life from those who decided they will resist Him as quite the same as Kellogs views. Of course, Eugene is also correct, it is not like he would spell it out anyway. So the underpinings of his beliefs are what are in question. As I mentinoed, I don't know the man, so I won't venture a guess. But I do see his refusal to allow that God actually does bring sin to an end as dangerous in its own right, in that it often leads people to value their view of God's love above some rather clear texts, and it tends to lesson the idea of God being a righteous God who will indeed judge the wicked.

Mr. Shubert, when I received from you the offensive statements listed below, I did not respond in kind, but rather respectfully responded overlooking the offense. I was hoping you would limit yourself to presenting your arguments defending your understanding of what you consider to be the truth.

I was disappointed to find out that you insist that I am under demonic deception, deserving the ultimate punishment: hell. This, in spite of the fact that you do not know me, you have no idea of the service I have provided to My Lord and to my church. I consider this to be extremely unfair and unchristian.

The only impressive evidence you will ever have to persuade you is the fiery expectation of judgment ...

You are under the influence of demonic philosophy ...

Your soul is in jeopardy ...

Today, you responded again in the same vein when you stated:

Persons who have been seduced by the doctrines of demons ...

The fact that you do show the tendency to inflict the most offensive accusation against anybody who disagrees with you is a sign to me that you are not guided by the one who, when being tormented by those who were cucifying him, responded with a prayer asking God to forgive them. He could have consigned them to hell. He did not. I hope you see the contrast between your bahavior and that of Jesus, and may the good Lord forgive you for this!

"It is very interesting to help such people die unafraid. Or would you think an atheist ought to die scared stiff? He deserves to. You know, even God's enemies have no need to be afraid of Him." —A. Graham Maxwell.

Point of clarification on Maxwell's theory:

The theory doesn't claim that the final judgment will be a pleasurable experience for the lost, and it doesn't deny that the wicked will suffer "hell." It is just that God will deal with those who go to hell in such a wonderfully loving way, that the adherents of this theory wouldn't mind going there.

Nic Samojluk wrote: I was hoping you would limit yourself to presenting your arguments defending your understanding of what you consider to be the truth.

All my theses have been presented. What is there to defend? It's your own inability to grasp the obvious that is the issue here. Thanks for the demonstration. A similar tragedy, and a relevant comparison, is the theology-induced confusion of Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. The Doctor became so fully imbued and enraptured by the spirit of his own mind-controlling deception that Ellen White found it impossible to communicate with him. Sadly, the influence of the demonic sophistry that dominated Kellogg's mind led him to severely twist and misinterpret every letter that Sister White would write to him. A meaningful dialogue with you, to help you see the bewitching delusion you are under, is just as impossible.

We should be afraid of the men who exploit the power of Satan's science. Maxwell has deceived you beyond your capacity to recover on your own.

My labeling of Maxwell's theory as demonic (1 Timothy 4:1) and the Seventh-day Adventist leaders that do not oppose it as hapless dupes of Satan, is no more offensive than what Ellen White wrote about Kellogg and the Adventist church of her day. My thesis is that Maxwell's theology of death is the fulfillment of the prophesied omega of deadly heresies and, consequently, is even more ungodly and frightening than Kellogg's theology of life.