A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
I have opened this thread to answer questions on pseudo Adventism’s pantheism (past and present). To understand this subject, you need to first read the information contained in the opening hyperlinks. You should also read, Was John Harvey Kellogg A Pantheist?
Question 1. Ellen White, in 1904, warned Seventh-day Adventists to not enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God (Selected Messages, Book 1, page 203). What is wrong with a vigorous debate on a controversial topic?
Ellen G. White wrote:
I have been instructed by the heavenly messenger that some of the reasoning in the book Living Temple is unsound, and that this reasoning would lead astray the minds of those who are not thoroughly established on the foundation principles of present truth. It introduces that which is nought but speculation in regard to the personality of God and where His presence is. Selected Messages Book 1, pages 201-202.
Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:07 pm Post subject: The presence and personality of God
Question 2. Exactly what did Ellen White mean by “the presence and personality of God”?
It was being argued by Kellogg and his followers (with great enthusiasm) that the presence of God is in trees, flowers, sunshine, air, and human beings. See the first link for an accurate exposition. The meaning of the phrase personality of God is easily ascertained by reviewing the writings of the time. Please consider the following testimonies:
Quote:
Pantheism is the term used to designate the strange new teachings that were being introduced. Pantheism pictures God not as a great personal Being, but a mysterious essence—an impersonal influence pervading all nature. God is seen in all nature—in trees, flowers, sunshine, air, and human beings. The power of God in nature is confused with the personality of God. Ellen G. White: The Early Elmshaven Years Volume 5 1900-1905, page 281.
Writing on October 2 to Dr. E. J. Waggoner, she said: I am authorized to say to you that some of the sentiments regarding the personality of God, as found in the book Living Temple, are opposed to the truths revealed in the Word of God. ... Had God desired to be represented as dwelling personally in the things of nature—in the flower, the tree, the spear of grass—would not Christ have spoken of this to His disciples? —Letter 230, 1903. Ellen G. White: The Early Elmshaven Years Volume 5 1900-1905, page 303.
In another September 18 letter Ellen White wrote: Dr. Paulson’s mind is becoming confused.... Extreme views of “God in nature” undermine the foundation truths of the personality of God and the ministration of angels. A confused mass of spiritualistic ideas takes the place of faith in a personal God.... Let Dr. Paulson take heed that he be not deceived. He may say, “Sister White’s own words are repeated in Dr. Kellogg’s teachings.” True; but misinterpreted and misconstrued. —Letter 271b, 1903. Ellen G. White: The Early Elmshaven Years Volume 5 1900-1905, page 303.
Let no one teach things that the Redeemer, He who owns man, body, soul, and spirit, has not taught. We need not any fanciful teaching regarding the personality of God. What God desires us to know of Him is revealed in His word and His works. The beautiful things of nature reveal His character and His power as Creator. They are His gift to the race, to show His power and to show that He is a God of love. But no one is authorized to say that God Himself in person is in flower or leaf or tree. These things are God’s handiwork, revealing His love for mankind. Medical Ministry, page 94.
Christ came to teach human beings what God desires them to know. In the heavens above, in the earth, in the broad waters of the ocean, we see the handiwork of God. All created things testify to His power, His wisdom, His love. But not from the stars or the ocean or the cataract can we learn of the personality of God as it is revealed in Christ.
God saw that a clearer revelation than nature was needed to portray both His personality and His character. He sent His Son into the world to reveal, so far as could be endured by human sight, the nature and the attributes of the invisible God. Testimonies for the Church Volume Eight, page 265.
He [Christ] represented God not as an essence that pervaded nature, but as a God who has a personality. S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7, page 921, paragraph 9.
The new theories in regard to God and Christ, as brought out in “The Living Temple”, are not in harmony with the teaching of Christ. The Lord Jesus came to this world to represent the Father. He did not represent God as an essence pervading nature, but as a personal being. Christians should bear in mind that God has a personality as verily as has Christ. Spalding and Magan Collection, page 324.
The Lord Jesus came to our world to represent the Father. He represented God not as an essence that pervaded nature, but as a God who has a personality. Manuscript Releases Volume Nineteen, page 250.
The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be “the express image of His person.” “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here is shown the personality of the Father. Evangelism, page 614-615.
The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. “For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man, which is in him; even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” —Ms 20, 1906. Evangelism, page 617. Entire Ms. Manuscript Releases Volume Twenty, page 69.
Joined: 15 Oct 2002 Posts: 10 Location: Halstad, Minnesota
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2002 8:51 pm Post subject:
Sounds strange at first that there would be a connection between Kellogg and Maxwell, though Dr. Milton Crane suggested that very thing in his book A Modern Subtle Challenge to God's Authority.
What I find peculiar is that so many of the results of Kellogg's theology that EGW identified are also results of Maxwell's. For example, pantheistic theories carried to their logical conclusion do away with the whole Christian economy. What would that be? Well, since the Jewish economy was the sacrificial system, the Christian economy would be the same.
Maxwell's theology, like Kellogg's, does away with the substitutionary atonement, the necessity of the mediatorial work of Christ, the necessity of a literal sanctuary in heaven, etc.
Thanks for the response. I'm trying to see where the connection is. Unfortunately, I have never read any of the books that have been mentioned. But I have listened to some of Graham Maxwell's sabbath school classes. I never heard anything that is even remotely pantheistic.
I have heard people say that his theology "does away with the substitutionary atonement" but I'm not exactly sure what that means. I always found his explanation of "atonement" to be very Biblically grounded, though I am certainly no professional theologian. I do find it odd to see his name used in connection with pantheism without a single reference linking his theology to pantheism. Did Mr. Shubert ask Graham Maxwell if he believed in pantheism before he used his name in this thread?
Who published A Modern Subtle Challenge to God’s Authority and where can I get a copy? I’m hoping the church published it. I was wondering how long it would take the brethren to see any connection between Maxwell and Kellogg.
In the beginning of this thread I presented two large links on the pantheism of Kellogg and Maxwell. Do you agree with my position as expressed in those references?
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2002 9:21 am Post subject: Graham Maxwell's Alleged Pantheism
I am a first-time visitor to your web site. I have sat at Maxwell's Sabbath School classes for many years, and have read the books he has published. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can pin the pantheism label to this man! I hope you are not likewise dead wrong on the other subjects you publish!
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:06 am Post subject: It’s hard to prove anything about Maxwell
True academia is governed by the motto, “publish or perish” but Maxwell hasn’t published a single document about his unique message. There is nothing that specifically spells out what he believes. I’ve personally heard Dr Maxwell say that his loyal followers are always urging him to write a definitive book but that he is hesitant to present his view as a systematic theology.
The problem with the book Servants or Friend is that it’s written on a third grade level. It seems to make Maxwell’s lies and the way he tells them—like, that the word “justification” isn’t the best rendering of the Greek—seem almost proper.
I used to live in Redlands and have spent plenty of time with Maxwell and his devoted followers. I know what I’m talking about.
Randy S and nicsamojluk,
The issue is Whats the difference between the teaching of Kellogg and Maxwell and what I have written?
I have listened to some of Graham Maxwell's sabbath school classes. I never heard anything that is even remotely pantheistic.
Randy,
You’re trying to defend Maxwell without understanding the charges against him. What John Harvey Kellogg believed was a theory “akin to pantheism.” Maxwell’s doctrine is strikingly similar. I have simply adopted the terminology used by Ellen White describing Kellogg and applied it to Maxwell.
Randy S wrote:
I have heard people say that his theology "does away with the substitutionary atonement" but I'm not exactly sure what that means.
Did Mr. Shubert ask Graham Maxwell if he believed in pantheism before he used his name in this thread?
Kellogg repeatedly denied that he was a pantheist. It doesn’t matter if he confirmed or denied the charge. A judgment is true if those with discernment know that it is.
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2002 9:13 am Post subject: Maxwell's Pantheism
Thanks for answering my question. I am really impressed with your web site. Nevertheless, regarding your alleged Maxwell's pantheism, I remain unconvinced. I have listened to Maxwell for years, and I have never seen even an iota of evidence pointing to anything that resembles pantheism in his teachings
You make reference to his position regarding justification. How is this connected with pantheism? I understand pantheism to be a denial of a personal God. I find nowhere in Maxwell's teachings or writings any evidence that he ever suggested that we do not have a personal God. I do not see any connection between his theory of atonement and pantheism!
The purpose of having an opinion isn’t for blindly rejecting a given thesis or explanation. This discussion thread is for investigating two brief pages on the pantheism of John Harvey Kellogg and A. Graham Maxwell [1][2], not for maintaining a stubborn denial and refusing to look.
Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 9:17 am Post subject: Maxwell's Alleged Pantheism
You have the following definition for pantheism:
"Pantheism pictures God not as a great personal Being, but a mysterious essence—an impersonal influence pervading all nature."
Can you cite any statement by Maxwell where he negates the existence of a personal God? I have listened to Maxwell for many years, and I never heard him insinuate anything like that. On the contrary, all his teachings are grounded in the existence of a personal God.
The purpose of my two pages on the pantheism of Kellogg and Maxwell [1][2], is to demonstrate the striking parallel between the pantheism of Kellogg and the pantheism of Maxwell.
To Kellogg, life was the presence of God in the air we breathe the water we drink or in the healthy food we eat. It was Ellen G. White who labeled Kellogg’s belief as pantheism. I’m simply using the same vocabulary. To Kellogg, taking a bath was an exciting religious experience because Kellogg knew that God was in the water and he would splash God-filled water all over himself. This kind of religious experience is more the worship of water than a connection to God.
To Maxwell, death is God withdrawing His life-giving power from the sinner and Maxwell is very delighted to explain the death process to you. It’s his gospel. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Maxwell worships the death process. He is very excited to explain that “natural consequences” and not God is what will kill the wicked in the final judgment. He exalts “natural consequences” and nature above God. This is pantheism in the sense already explained.
Kellogg denied that he was a pantheist [3]. There are no statements by Kellogg where he negates the existence of a personal God. If you want to understand Maxwell rightly, then understand Kellogg correctly.
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
