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.
Thank you for responding! I am impressed with your deep concern for my soul. Nevertheless, I am surprised that you do not even know me, and yet you have already concluded that I am
Quote:
beyond the power of ordinary persuasion and that
I am
Quote:
under the influence of demonic philosophy.
and that my
Quote:
soul is in jeopardy
just because you failed to convince me that Maxwell's teachings are pantheistic. Using the same reasoning, I could conclude as well that your soul is in jeopardy, and that you are the one under demonic influence, because it is a fact that I failed to convince you of the accuracy of my view about the subject.
I will use the definition of pantheism which you quote:
Quote:
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.
Anybody who has read what Maxwell has published and what he has been teaching throughout the years can testify that his teachings do not fit this definition.
Your conclusion that, because he believes that the final destruction of the wicked is the natural consequence of their choices, then he does not believe in the sovereignty of God or a personal God is a non-sequitur, for the simple reason that God is the author and designer of nature and its laws. If God designed nature, then he is above nature. This Maxwell recognizes ad nauseam.
Personally, I disagree with Maxwell about his view of the final destruction of the wicked, but I do not go so far as concluding that he is teaching pantheism. Kellogg may have allusions to a personal God, but he definitely has many references that fit quite accurately into the definition of pantheism quoted above.
You argue that Maxwell's view of the atonement is another evidence that he in the pantheistic camp. I do not buy this. I quoted E. G. White where she defines the atonement on Maxwell's terms, and I quoted the Bible, and you sent me to jail for doing it, because I repeated this terrible offense twice.
I am not familiar about your doctrinal position on other doctrinal subjects, but your set opinion about your alleged Maxwell's pantheism makes me wonder whether you might be mistaken on other topics as well. This does not deny the fact that I am deeply impressed with the sophistication of your website, and your dedication to it! May the Lord bless you in spite of everything!
just because you failed to convince me that Maxwell's teachings are pantheistic.
Nic, your perceptions are false. My conclusions are based on your confessions of Maxwell’s basic teachings. Because of the striking similarities between alpha and omega pantheism and the relevance of inspiration, I’ve concluded that whatever the testimony of God’s Spirit has said about the alpha, then its also true of the omega.
Of the alpha promoters, Ellen White wrote:
Quote:
They make of no effect the counsel of God and set aside His warnings and reproofs, and are positively on Satan’s side, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.
Therefore, those who embrace the omega are “positively on Satan’s side.” There is no reason to doubt the Spirit of Prophecy. If anything, the omega should be more alarming than the alpha.
nicsamojluk wrote:
just because you failed to convince me that Maxwell's teachings are pantheistic.
I can’t even persuade you that omega pantheism is pantheistic!
You are making of no effect the counsel of God. Even I believe “that the final destruction of the wicked is the natural consequence of their choices” but I don’t take that statement to pantheistic extremes.
You quote a definition of ordinary pantheism and conclude that Maxwell isn’t a pantheist. It’s true that you are free to close your mind to what I’m saying. But in this instance, your denial doesn’t help you. Even in your refusal to see you’re confirming my thesis. I’ve defined alpha pantheism and omega pantheism and with these definitions, Maxwell fulfills EGW’s prophecy with stunning perfection.
nicsamojluk wrote:
Kellogg …definitely has many references that fit quite accurately into the definition of pantheism quoted above.
There is no perspective on Kellogg’s pantheism that is more sharply focused and revealing than my own summary. I don’t believe that you can find even one statement by Kellogg to prove that he believed in ordinary, run-of-the-mill pantheism.
It is true that Maxwell can quote Ellen White and the Bible on an aspect of the atonement that no one disputes. The issue is what Maxwell denies. It is precisely Maxwell’s denial of Biblical justification and his acceptance of Socinus and Socinian pantheism that Buchanan addresses in point number 7 of the page The Denial of Justice and The Man of Lawlessness Part 1. And I remind you, Buchanan was writing in the early 1800s.
Your posts [1][2] were removed from Mount Carmel because confusion, obfuscation and obstinate interruption aren’t permitted in the High Mountain forums.
Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2002 10:31 am Post subject: Maxwell's Alleged Pantheism
I will limit my response to your last comment:
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Your posts [1][2] were removed from Mount Carmel because confusion, obfuscation and obstinate interruption aren’t permitted in the High Mountain forums.
I had quoted E.G. White and Jesus Christ in response to your argument about Maxwell's teaching on the atonement:
Quote:
Maxwell's non-legalistic view of the cross is firmly grounded in the following statement by Ellen White in Education p. 63: "The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God." This non-forensic explanation for the atonement is seconded by Jesus' statement in John 12:32: "If I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me."
You determined that this represented "confusion" and "obfuscation."
I did this in response to your invitation to post a reply. When you removed the above-quoted portion of my reply, I committed the great sin of posting it again. You call this action of mine "obstinate interruption" and I agree. I plead guilty to the charge, with the following explanation. Why did I post my reply again? To call your atention to the fact that, if you invite readers to post a reply, I feel it is unfair to remove their response just because it does not support your favorite interpretation of the Bible. If you had at least provided a link to my response, your action would have been less offensive to me.
If you feel the right to feel offended, remember that readers have the same right. If you do not want people to reply to your arguments on Mount Carmel, then do not invite readers to reply. I do not see fairness in inviting readers to post a reply and then remove those replies and label them as "obstinate interruption." As you can see, I admitted my sin. Let us see if you are humble enough to admit yours!
What I am trying to do is to help you remove from your magnificent and sophisticated web site what is likely to cause "confusion" and "obfuscation" which you dislike. There are many simple solutions to this problem which you could implement: If you do not want interruptions and challenges to your favorite interpretations of the bible on your "High Mountain forums" then, for God's sake, either remove your invitation to readers to post a reply, or else replace it with an invitation to ask questions only!
Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2002 10:43 am Post subject: Maxwell's Alleged Pantheism
Following Shuberts's advice, I posted the following question in his High Mountain forum:
"Thanks for explaining to me why the last portion of my comments were deleted. Following your suggestion, I will replace the deleted portion of my comments with a question:
Considering the following,
A. That Maxwell does believe in the existence of a personal God who is above and in charge of the universe he created, which fact is denied by pantheism.
B. That his view of the atonement is supported by statements by E.G. White like the one found in Education p. 263
Quote:
The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God.
C. That Jesus himself seems to agree with Maxwell's theory of atonement as evidenced by his explanation of the divine purpose for his suffering as found in John 12:32
Quote:
When I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
Is is unreasonable for me to conclude that, perhaps, Maxwell's alleged pantheism does not really strictly apply to Maxwell's teachings, and perhaps neither to Kellog?"
Shubert rejected my question as a non-question:
Quote:
From: Eugene Shubert
To: Nic Samojluk
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 11:12 PM
Subject: Not a question
I consider your recent "question" to be full of erroneous insinuations. Your post is unacceptable and does not meet the high standard of the High Mountain forums.
I appeal to you, the reader: Tell me, should I question my sanity? I believe I did ask a question. Maxwell is a highly respected teacher who does not deserve, I believe, the label of pantheist. His teachings are grounded in the Bible and E.G. White. His views on the atonement go back to great theologians such as Peter Abelard, and are supported by the Bible, E.G. White, and other SDA theologians of high standing such as Jack Provonsha.
Even if he were wrong on the atonement, his teachings do not deserve the label of pantheistic, since pantheism negates the existence of a personal God, which Maxwell strongly affirms.
The forensic, legalistic view of the atonement developed and popularized by Anselm, the Bishop of Canterbury, has serious implications for the character of God. It points to God as refusing to grant forgiveness unless he gets his pound of flesh through the death of his own Son. This is not justice, but rather a miscarriage of justice. The one who demanded the death of the innocent was not God, but rather the one who has been a "murderer from the beginning," the one who has instigated the death of innocents since Cain murdered his brother Abel.
Substitutionary justice is permitted only in civil cases. If I am guilty of a traffic violation, anybody can pay the penalty for my infraction. But if I am guilty of murder, the law will not be satisfied by the death of an innocent bystander. I must pay the penalty. God can forgive, not because another innocent individual was sacrificed, but rather because the murderer has been transformed into a saint, and is no longer a threat to society. E. G. White states that
Quote:
The atonement of Christ is not a mere skillful way to have our sins pardoned; it is a divine remedy for the cure of transgression (6BC 1074)
Ellen White's explanation that the cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the suffering God was subjected to since the inception of sin and rebellion is a much better explanation as to why Jesus died. Jesus was born to be a King. God did not demand his death. Satan did, and he got his pound of flesh. God permitted this in order that we should see the contrast between the character of God and that of the great deceiver.
When Jesus wept on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he did so because his people did not understand the consequences of their rejection of him as their rightful King. Had they accepted him, which was God's original plan, as stated by E. White, there would have been no death of Jesus, I believe, since the penalty for sin is suffering, and God had suffered enough since rebellion broke out in heaven. The Bible states that "In all their afflictions, I was afflicted." There was no need for God to suffer more than what he had suffered already. The death of Jesus was not a payment for sin, but rather an overpayment, permitted by heaven that we might comprehend what sin does to the heart of a loving God.
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:06 pm Post subject: Maxwell's Alleged Pantheism
I posted the following in response to Shubert's allegation that Graham Maxwell teaches pantheistic doctrines, but my posting was returned in personal email by Mr. Shubert and declared unsuitable for the Holy Mountain. I was asked to post my response here.
"I stand by what I said, and I stick to the dictionary definition of "pantheism," and based on what I know about Maxwell, he is not, has never been, and probably will never be a pantheist. I can understand your accusation against Graham Maxwell, since you evidently do not know the man. But I have a harder time understanding your statement about me:
Quote:
A meaningful dialogue with you, to help you see the bewitching delusion you are under, is just as impossible.
Quote:
Maxwell has deceived you beyond your capacity to recover on your own.
You seem to be working for the Lord, and I conclude that you must love him, as I do; yet you hurl the most offensive accusations against those who refuse to agree with your theology. Notice that the Jews did the same in their last attempt to convince Jesus that he was deluded into thinking that he was the "son of God" instead of the son a bad woman.
Jesus stated in his prayer that the most impressive testimony for God is the unity of those who believe in him. How can I be one with you when you insist in offending me? Accusing those who work for the Lord is not the work of God, and it can never be!
Do you want me to be a submissive puppet and regurgitate your pronouncementes against my own convictions of what God has shown me in 72 years? This would mean surrendering the freewil God has granted me. The noble Bereans did not do that, but rather went home and searched the Scriptures in order to determine whether what they had been taught by the man of God bore the seal of "Thus said the Lord."
I intend to say no more about this subject, and I hope I have no need to repeat what I have already stated.
By the way, I would like to end in a positive note: I owe to you something you may not know: I was inspired by your impressive bulletin board, and now I have one similar to yours. Had I not crossed my path with yours, I may have never tried to duplicate what you are doing, although with a slightly different objective from yours. I believe that my stumbling with your website was providential, and I want to give you credit where credit is due. I will include a link to my webside here:
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:16 pm Post subject: Maxwell's Alleged Pantheism
I just reviewed my first posting at the top of this page and discovered a statement I do not believe I made:
Quote:
Kellogg may have allusions to a personal God, but he definitely has many references that fit quite accurately into the definition of pantheism quoted above.
I hereby disown this statement. It does not reflect my thinking and my convictions about Maxwell.
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:44 pm Post subject: If he only knew....
... if Eugene Schubert ONLY KNEW what a real live daimonizomai looked like tasted like smelled like felt like ......... he would not go about so lightly and frivilously attributing "demonic" this and "satanic" that to everyone who simply holds a different CHRISTIAN theological viewpoint from himself.
We are visceral
We are incisive
and We are Everywhere
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
