|
A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Eugene Shubert the new William Miller

Joined: 06 Apr 2002 Posts: 1006 Location: Richardson Texas
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: A. Graham Maxwell's Contribution to Theology |
|
|
A. Graham Maxwell's Contribution to Theology
This article is divided into four sections. The first three sections cover A. Graham Maxwell's contribution to
- Second Century Gnosticism
- Medieval Moral Influence Theory
- The New Age Interpretation of the Cross
Section 4 summaries Graham Maxwell's indebtedness to the pantheism of John Harvey Kellogg.
Gnosticism
Here are the essential points of 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 premises common to the many varieties of Gnostic belief were 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)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eugene Shubert the new William Miller

Joined: 06 Apr 2002 Posts: 1006 Location: Richardson Texas
|
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:41 am Post subject: Moral Influence Theory and Socinian Theology |
|
|
Moral Influence Theory
“The moral influence theory (m.i.th) has its roots in the teaching of Abelard (d. 1142), one of the keenest medieval minds. According to this view, the purpose of Christ’s death was in no way a substitution to meet the proper demands of a righteous God for judgment on sin but solely a demonstration to provide such a moving expression of God’s love that it would melt the sinner’s enmity against God, awaken responsive love in his heart, promote true repentance, and thus pave the way for forgiveness of sin. Reconciliation, in this theory, means only the setting aside of man’s hostility toward God” Raoul Dederen, The Sanctuary and the Atonement, p. 310.
The Focus of Socinian Theology
“A formidable attack was made on the doctrine of the Reformers by Socinus. He began with an attempt to remove the very foundation on which it was based, namely, the idea of justice in God as understood by Anselm and the Reformers. He denied the presence of any such justice in God ‘as requires absolutely and inexorably that sin be punished.’
“...He also holds that, since guilt is personal, substitution in penal matters is impossible; and that, even if it were allowable, it cannot be said that Christ bore the exact penalty of the law, since this would mean that He died as many eternal deaths as there are sinners. And yet He did not even suffer one endless death...
“Socinus never tires of saying that the forgiveness of sins is an act of pure mercy, simply on the basis of repentance and obedience. The only conditions are sorrow for sin and an earnest desire to obey the law. ...This theory establishes no direct connection between the death of Christ and the salvation of sinners. The death of Christ did not atone for our sin. ...The forgiveness of sins depends exclusively on the mercy of God. But because Christ received the power to bestow eternal life on believers immediately after His death, Socinus considers it possible to maintain that this death expiated our sins.” Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, pp. 184-185.
Here is just one example of the devilishly brilliant way that Graham Maxwell uses Socinianism to mock vicarious substitutionary atonement:
| Quote: | There is much friendship talk in the Bible, but there is much legal talk too, isn't there? Much servant talk. Isn't it true that sin is breaking the law? And the just penalty for breaking the law is death. See, God's minimum penalty is death. If He were running the highway patrol, and you were caught breaking the speed limit, the penalty would be death. That is His minimum penalty. You steal a cookie—death. Speak a cross word—death. Right there one begins to feel uncomfortable, but this person proceeds stoutly on and says, Didn't Jesus die to pay that penalty? So isn't the legal model of the plan of salvation correct? Justice requires this. The law requires this.
Well, what should we do about all of that talk? One suggestion. What is this death that is the penalty for sin? That is what we call the second death. And what's so terrible about that is there is no resurrection. That death is eternal. Did Jesus pay that death? Well, did He stay dead for eternity? He rose on Sunday. And He went up to heaven, and He said, Was it enough? And they said, No, you are not supposed to have done this. Get back down and we won't tell anyone we saw you out. You are supposed to stay in the grave forever. —The Serpent Speaks, p. 12. |
The Denial of Justice and The Man of Lawlessness |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eugene Shubert the new William Miller

Joined: 06 Apr 2002 Posts: 1006 Location: Richardson Texas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eugene Shubert the new William Miller

Joined: 06 Apr 2002 Posts: 1006 Location: Richardson Texas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|