Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:06 am Post subject: Did Eugene Shubert Ever Interview Graham Maxwell?
[edit by Moderator]This post interrupted the teaching of a fundamental doctrine of this ministry in the gospel forum and was therefore moved from there to be answered separately. – The Moderator.[/edit by Moderator]
I am reading Looking Upward's Comments. I have barely one one hour to spare, and I am not sure whether I'll be able to finish. He argues that Maxwell is wrong about his theory that God does not kill by means of the Second Death, but rather only the first:
Quote:
I have been pondering something since I recently heard a recorded interview with Graham Maxwell where he admits that God kills people. I was surprised to hear him admit that; but he did put in a qualifier that left me puzzled. He says that God only kills when it comes to the first death, but not in the second death. Maxwell's stance seems a bit inconsistent. First he says that God killed the wicked preflood inhabitants by drowning them, but yet the claim is made that God will not directly bring about their (the wicked) final destruction in the second death.
Here is where I have a problem: If when He killed the wicked in the flood, knowing that their ultimate fate would be their final destruction in the second death, why would the concept that God also brings about the actual destruction resulting in the second death be so hard to swallow?
Your reasoning makes sense. This matches what I was thinking every time I heard Dr. Maxwell refer to this belief of his. Nevertheless, after reading this counter argument by Looking Upward, it suddenly dawned on me that there is actually a difference between the first death and the second one. The first one is only temporary, and of a short duration; while the second one is of eternal consequences.
This doesn't mean that I am sold yet on the notion that God has nothing to do with the second death. Even if he didn't, we still have to admit that sinners will suffer the second death because God designed the rules which will finally result in the eternal separation of the wicked from God. Either way, I do not see here any reason to conclude that Maxwell is a false prophet. Here is my reason:
I do not know Eugene Shubert. Neither do I know who Looking Upward is. But I certainly do know who Graham Maxwell is. I listened to him for over a decade, and when I compare his way of dealing with his students and what he teaches, I can only think of Jesus Christ. His attitude towards others, his tactful way of dealing with his listeners, his impeccable character, his patience with those who disagreed with him, provided me with ample evidence that he must have learned this at the feet of the Carpenter of Galilee.
Can I say the same about Eugene Shubert? I don't know, because I do not really know him! Perhaps you do know him, and can answer this question. When you deal with him, do you get the impression that he reflects the holy character of the Savior? Our character, more than our theological knowledge, will determine our eternal destiny. Is Eugene compassionate with those who oppose and criticize him? Does he respond to his enemies with "God, forgive them because they do not know what they are doing?" If he does, then why does he keep so many in a virtual jail? You might argue that a virtual jail does not really hurt. Are you sure?
Maxwell might be in error regarding the second death, but he is right in the way he treats others. The Bible says that whenever there is a disagreement in the church, the offended person needs to follow certain rules of reconciliation: A. Confront the brother in love. B. Do this again in front of Christian witnesses. C. If this fails, let the church decide who is right [Matthew 18: 15-17].
Do you know whether Eugene Shubert followed these steps outlined by the Jesus Christ? If he didn't, and if the church did not declare him an infidel, then Shubert does not have the right to label him as a false teacher "giving heed to seducing spirits whose doctrines are of satanic origin." Shubert uses the strongest imaginable words of condemnation for Maxwell:
Quote:
All this is fulfilled in the demonic philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell.
Did Maxwell ever reciprocate in like manner towards Shubert? If he did, can you document it on this web site? If he didn't in spite of the offensive way he is being treated by his opposer, then what can I conclude from this? Didn't Jesus pray for unity? How can there be unity when a saint like Graham Maxwell is so viciously attacked by another member of the same church? How can one who claims to love God be so merciless towards a brother for whom Jesus Christ died?
You might have an answer for my questions. If you do, let the Holy Spirit guide you in doing so. Without this, there is no way I will be prone to agree with you on this issue
I do not know Eugene Shubert. Neither do I know who Looking Upward is. But I certainly do know who Graham Maxwell is. I listened to him for over a decade,
It's a tragedy in my view how someone could listen to a "Bible teacher" for over a decade and so clearly demonstrate, as you do, the inability to respond logically to a clear theological proposition. Thanks for showing yourself as such a tragic example of the power of Maxwell's mesmerizing nonsense. All you do is ooze and drip emotionalism and irrationality.
Nic Samojluk wrote:
and when I compare his way of dealing with his students and what he teaches, I can only think of Jesus Christ. His attitude towards others, his tactful way of dealing with his listeners, his impeccable character, his patience with those who disagreed with him, provided me with ample evidence that he must have learned this at the feet of the Carpenter of Galilee.
In a recent thread in the jail forum, moigboi praises The People of Travesser and has testified as solemnly as you have, saying, they are "some of the most dedicated seekers after God I have ever met in my life." I don't believe moigboi for Biblical and sound logical reasons and I have a very good reason to put all the enthusiastic supporters of Michael Travesser in the jail forum. For starters, the group's leader, a former SDA pastor, has led his congregation of about 70 into the wilderness of New Mexico and claims to be Michael the archangel. His supporters, all brainwashed and supernaturally deceived Seventh-day Adventists, believe that he is Jesus and the Second Coming of Christ.
The coming of the lawless one is in accord with the activity of Satan and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10). "All the deception of wickedness" surely includes counterfeit miracles, counterfeit scholarship and a counterfeit holiness. "And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14).
Nic Samojluk wrote:
Can I say the same about Eugene Shubert? I don't know, because I do not really know him! Perhaps you do know him, and can answer this question. When you deal with him, do you get the impression that he reflects the holy character of the Savior? Our character, more than our theological knowledge, will determine our eternal destiny.
Jesus taught in Mathew 25 that our eternal destiny is determined by how we treat the true followers of Christ. Woe to those lying followers of Maxwell who judge unrighteously, imprison through false testimony and initiate lawsuits by the standard of "How dare that man believe in the omega prophecy and not in the holiness of A. Graham Maxwell?"
Nic Samojluk wrote:
Is Eugene compassionate with those who oppose and criticize him? Does he respond to his enemies with "God, forgive them because they do not know what they are doing?" If he does, then why does he keep so many in a virtual jail?
This forum is a private ministry dedicated to highlighting important truths (everything important) as explained in THE PHILOSOPHY GOVERNING THIS FORUM. The Scriptures quoted on that page requires us to use discernment and to make a distinction between the holy and profane.
Nic Samojluk wrote:
You might argue that a virtual jail does not really hurt. Are you sure?
Why are you descending so deeply into the pit and complaining about a virtual universe and my right to not exalt the darkest threads to the heavenly forums? I'll tell you why. I speak out against spiritualism exercising its unholy influence in the Seventh-day Adventist church and I've written out my experience concerning certain followers of Maxwell who have resorted to using Satan's methods, hateful lies and the civil power to destroy my influence, only because I believe in the Ellen White's omega prophecy and not in the holiness of Maxwell and his followers.
Nic Samojluk wrote:
Maxwell might be in error regarding the second death, but he is right in the way he treats others.
I believe that Graham Maxwell is inspired by demons. I also believe that Graham Maxwell is very unkind by introducing tidbits of his heresy randomly in thousands of tapes that he sends all over the world while refusing to condense his controversial ideas. Instead, he spends most of his time inserting very small doses of his poison in each of his tapes (made weekly) and tells concerned Adventists and scholars that they have to listen to thousands of hours of these tapes before they can understand his message. "Creeping in unawares" in this way, with dangerous doctrines, is extremely unkind to all Seventh-day Adventists. I've heard Maxwell say several times that he is always receiving requests from his supporters to write a definitive exposition of his unique message but that he is hesitant to present his view as a systematic theology.
It's unfair to judge Maxwell by his book, Servants or Friends? because Maxwell wrote that book on a third grade level and in so shallow a form that it is difficult to say anything definite from it's childish and purposely vague language. Similarly, Maxwell's earlier work, Can God be Trusted? is too incomplete to be judged as a fair representation of Maxwell's imaginative speculations. Its aim is to present an introductory and beautiful showcase that only hints at Maxwell's false teachings, but like Servants or Friends? evil is present.
Nic Samojluk wrote:
The Bible says that whenever there is a disagreement in the church, the offended person needs to follow certain rules of reconciliation: A. Confront the brother in love. B. Do this again in front of Christian witnesses. C. If this fails, let the church decide who is right [Matthew 18: 15-17].
Do you know whether Eugene Shubert followed these steps outlined by the Jesus Christ? If he didn't, and if the church did not declare him an infidel, then Shubert does not have the right to label him as a false teacher "giving heed to seducing spirits whose doctrines are of satanic origin."
Your use of Matthew 18 is wrong. Christ's instruction in Matthew 18:15-17 refers to private wrongs. The Bible teaches that open sins are to be openly rebuked. The following from the Spirit of prophecy should clarify the issue:
Ellen G. White wrote:
Sabbath my husband spoke in the forenoon, and I followed for two hours before taking food. The meeting was then closed for a few moments, and I took a little food, and afterward spoke in a social meeting for one hour, bearing pointed testimonies for several present. These testimonies were generally received with feelings of humility and gratitude. I cannot, however, say that all were so received.
The next morning, as we were about to leave for the house of worship to engage in the arduous labors of the day, a sister for whom I had a testimony that she lacked discretion and caution, and did not fully control her words and actions, came in with her husband and manifested feelings of great unreconciliation and agitation. She commenced to talk and to weep. She murmured a little, and confessed a little, and justified self considerably. She had a wrong idea of many things I had stated to her. Her pride was touched as I brought out her faults in so public a manner. Here was evidently the main difficulty. But why should she feel thus? The brethren and sisters knew these things were so, therefore I was not informing them of anything new. But I doubt not that it was new to the sister herself. She did not know herself, and could not properly judge of her own words and acts. This is in a degree true of nearly all, hence the necessity of faithful reproofs in the church and the cultivation by all its members of love for the plain testimony.
Her husband seemed to feel unreconciled to my bringing out her faults before the church and stated that if Sister White had followed the directions of our Lord in Matthew 18:15-17 he should not have felt hurt: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
My husband then stated that he should understand that these words of our Lord had reference to cases of personal trespass, and could not be applied in the case of this sister. She had not trespassed against Sister White. But that which had been reproved publicly was public wrongs which threatened the prosperity of the church and the cause. Here, said my husband, is a text applicable to the case: 1 Timothy 5:20: "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 2, pp. 14-15.
Nic Samojluk wrote:
Shubert uses the strongest imaginable words of condemnation for Maxwell:
"All this is fulfilled in the demonic philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell."
Did Maxwell ever reciprocate in like manner towards Shubert? If he did, can you document it on this web site? If he didn't in spite of the offensive way he is being treated by his opposer, then what can I conclude from this?
Dr. Graham Maxwell answers thoughtful criticism in the exact same way as Dr. John Harvey Kellogg.
Nic Samojluk wrote:
Didn't Jesus pray for unity? How can there be unity when a saint like Graham Maxwell is so viciously attacked by another member of the same church? How can one who claims to love God be so merciless towards a brother for whom Jesus Christ died?
"Jesus prayed that his followers might be one; but we are not to sacrifice the truth in order to secure this union, for we are to be sanctified through the truth. Here is the foundation of all true peace. Human wisdom would change all this, pronouncing this basis too narrow. Men would try to effect unity through concession to popular opinion, through compromise with the world, a sacrifice of vital godliness. But truth is God's basis for the unity of his people." Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, April 12, 1892.
If you were to read Ellen White, you would find that my statements about Maxwell and his doctrines are based on Ellen White's writings concerning John Harvey Kellogg and his theology. My opinion of Maxwell and his message is based on what Maxwell teaches and Ellen White's omega prophecy.
Looking Upward has updated his article on the heresy of Dr. Graham Maxwell to include this observation:
Looking Upward wrote:
Because Dr. Maxwell is a theologian, many would never suspect that his teachings contain the elements of modern day spiritualism. There are some who have been so charmed by his theories that instead of attempting to refute the case made against Dr. Maxwell, they point to his Christian demeanor as proof that he is a man of God and a teacher of truth. Holy demeanor is important for a Christian, but Maxwell's teachings are not to be judged by how kind and courteous he can be.
Please observe very carefully how Looking Upward has refuted your fallacy by the pertinent use of clear thinking and logic:
Ellen G. White wrote:
When Moses, on returning to the camp, confronted the rebels, his severe rebukes and the indignation he displayed in breaking the sacred tables of the law were contrasted by the people with his brother's pleasant speech and dignified demeanor, and their sympathies were with Aaron. ... they were filled with admiration of his gentleness and patience. But God seeth not as man sees. —Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 323.
To that great Spirit of prophecy statement I will cite a definition on the meaning of being righteous from God's word:
Quote:
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. —1 John 3:7 (King James Version)
And in the NIV:
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. —1 John 3:7 (New International Version)
Note how you turn this Scripture all around. You assume that whoever is pleasant and pleasing to you is righteous and then conclude that all of Graham Maxwell's distortions of God's word and the Spirit of prophecy are right.
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
