I agree Deacon with this statement you wrote:

“The one thing I had trouble with Jack was his vocabulary was too esoteric for this old farmer.”
---------------------------------------------------------

That was the heart of the problem with Provonsha--he was much too intellectual for me.

I thank you Deacon for providing those references above, and since you knew the men referred to much better than I did, I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and let it rest there for now.

Stan

Stan

I also agree.  Isn’t it great that we were not picked to judge the world? 

Some day I must tell you about “Father Mac” a modern St. Francis, the “Regent” for the School of Dentistry and the Athletic Department at Marquette. “Old, grimy,fat, with the look of a dullard,but with a keen mind and a heart of gold and an ethic right out of the Gospel of James. 

Deacon and Stan, this is a great discussion.  We are fortunate, as you said Deacon, that we are not the judge of this world.

In discussions like this, I believe it is important to differentiate the person (who may be very likeable) with what the person teaches.  I’d be interested to see some solid evidence from the pen of Maxwell or Provonsha denying the judgment or the substitutionary atonement.  I have heard it exists, but I haven’t seen it myself.

Deacon, one of the things you mentioned was that these men were “teaching the saved” and therefore did not spend much time on topics like sin, God’s wrath, judgment, or the substitutionary atonement.

One of the things I’ve appreciated from the reformed perspective is our inability to know which of our hearers is saved or lost.  The danger is in assuming that everyone is saved and giving them a message meant only for those who are.  This may be well and good for those who are indeed saved, but it confuses and even obscures the need for repentance or turning from sin which is part and parcel of being born again.

I recently read a story that illustrates this, written by the evangelist Ray Comfort:

For years, I tried to witness to my dentist.  He is very likeable, incredibly intelligent, and the most foul-mouthed man you could ever meet.  He’s no moral hygienist.  Whenever I mention sin, he steps backward and quickly changes the subject.  Yet he loves to watch a popular preacher on TV.

I decided to listen closely to this admired minister to see why my dentist enjoys his messages, and heard the pastor tell his congregation that God loved them.  They were special to Him.  He approved of them.  He wasn’t at all mad at them.  They were made in His image.  They were God’s own masterpiece and there is no one like them.  God accepted them.  He had a plan for them.  He would never give up on them.  He wasn’t concerned about their weaknesses, their faults, or their mistakes.  If they messed up, it didn’t matter.  They needed to simply ask God for forgiveness.  They were of great value to Him.

In a thirty-minute sermon, he said fifteen to twenty times that God accepted them.  He was like a preaching thesaurus, saying the same thought (that God approved of his hearers) in dozens of different ways.  Obviously, every pastor should regularly speak of God’s love to his flock, but something wasn’t quite right with this sermon.

Why does any congregation need to be reassured of God’s love?  Why do they need to be told again and again of God’s approval?  The answer is clear: they have never seen the love of Calvary’s cross.  There is something wrong with a marriage relationship if someone else needs to continually reassure a wife that her husband really does love her, and that he accepts her.

At the end of this pastor’s sermon, he addressed the unsaved, revealing why his congregation was so evidently insecure about God’s love.  He simply invited people to make Jesus the Lord of their life, mentioning peace and happiness.  During a quick sinnner’s prayer, he did pray, “I repent of my sins,” but there was no mention of the cross.  Not even a hint of it.  Neither was their any reference to Judgment Day, the moral Law, the need for righteousness, or the reality of hell.

No wonder my dentist likes him.

Ray Comfort, What Did Jesus Do?, pp. 140-142

I would venture to say that speaking of God’s love to the exclusion of His holiness and righteous judgment, without ever mentioning the need for repentance and being born again, is not doing a service to any audience.  Sure, many may be already saved and may understand everything being said, but they will surely not object to hearing it again.  And for those who thought they were saved, it may be the first time they have really heard the bad news presented alongside the good, and it may just open their eyes to their need for the blood of Christ.

Greg

Greg

Thanks, I have nothing to add. My current belief system and the basis of my assurance is found in Jesus Christ as I have learned of Him through Scripture, particularly, David, John, and Paul and the ministry of godly men and women like, Heppenstall, H.M.S. Richards, Graham Maxwell, his sister Maureen, Jack Provonsha, Lynn Wood, Raymond Cottrell, Paul Heubach, John R. W. Stott, Philip Yancey, Father Mac, Fred Craddock, C. S. Lewis, Hans Kung, Pope John XXIII, Bea Neal,Bernice Webber (fourth and fifth grade teacher) Mrs. Burman,(my academy principal) John Bunyan, Dan McCall, a host of bloggers, and most of all my parents and my siblings. “Praise God from whom all blessings flow.”

I still am thrilled by Piper’s Christ-Exalting Grammer.
Thanks I needed that! 

Speaking of John Piper, here is a sermon from his web site which may be controversial, but it is pure scripture from Romans 9. This is the chapter that many wish was not in the Bible:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2002/110_The_Absolute_Sovereignty_of_God_What_Is_Romans_Nine_About/

There are many great quotes in this sermon. It especially is a blessing to trust in the absolute sovereignty of God in times of trial.

Stan

Here is the opening few paragraphs of Piper’s sermon above:

Romans 9:1-5

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

There are two experiences in my life that make Romans 9 one of the most important chapters in shaping the way I think about everything, and the way I have been led in ministry. One happened in seminary and turned my mental world upside down. The other happened in the fall of 1979 and led to my coming to serve this church.

When I entered seminary I believed in the freedom of my will, in the sense that it was ultimately self-determining. I had not learned this from the Bible; I absorbed it from the independent, self-sufficient, self-esteeming, self-exalting air that you and I breathe every day of our lives in America. The sovereignty of God meant that he can do anything with me that I give him permission to do. With this frame of mind I entered a class on Philippians with Daniel Fuller and class on the doctrine of salvation with James Morgan.

In Philippians I was confronted with the intractable ground clause of chapter 2 verse 13: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure,” which made God the will beneath my will and the worker beneath my work. The question was not whether I had a will; the question was why I willed what I willed. And the ultimate answer — not the only answer — was God.

In the class on salvation we dealt head on with the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace. Romans 9 was the watershed text and the one that changed my life forever. Romans 9:11-12 said, “Though they [Jacob and Esau] were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad — in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call — she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’” And when Paul raised the question in verse 14, “Is there injustice on God’s part?” He says, no, and quotes Moses (in verse 15): “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” And when he raises the question in verse 19, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” He answers in verse 21, “Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?”

Emotions run high when you feel your man-centered world crumbling around you. I met Dr. Morgan in the hall one day. After a few minutes of heated argument about the freedom of my will, I held a pen in front of his face and dropped it to the floor. Then I said, with not as much respect as a student ought to have, “I [!] dropped it.” Somehow that was supposed to prove that my choice to drop the pen was not governed by anything but my sovereign self.

But thanks be to God’s mercy and patience, at the end of the semester I wrote in my blue book for the final exam, “Romans 9 is like a tiger going about devouring free-willers like me.” That was the end of my love affair with human autonomy and the ultimate self-determination of my will. My worldview simply could not stand against the scriptures, especially Romans 9. And it was the beginning of a lifelong passion to see and savor the supremacy of God in absolutely everything.”
----------------------------------------------------------

I know these truths are not very popular in today’s American culture, but we can’t deny what the Bible teaches.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Shubee

[quote author="Greg"]I’d be interested to see some solid evidence from the pen of Maxwell or Provonsha denying the judgment or the substitutionary atonement.  I have heard it exists, but I haven’t seen it myself.

Maxwell’s denial of the judgment and the substitutionary atonement is very similar to what the channeled Jesus has said in the New Age book, A Course In Miracles, Vol. 1, pp. 84-85. What that masquerading demon has taught is compared to lengthy excerpts from an evangelistic sermon series that Maxwell gave at Andrews University.  See the documentation at the reference link titled The Spiritualistic Philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell.

[quote author="Shubee"][quote author="Greg"]I’d be interested to see some solid evidence from the pen of Maxwell or Provonsha denying the judgment or the substitutionary atonement.  I have heard it exists, but I haven’t seen it myself.

Maxwell’s denial of the judgment and the substitutionary atonement is very similar to what the channeled Jesus has said in the New Age book, A Course In Miracles, Vol. 1, pp. 84-85. What that masquerading demon has taught is compared to lengthy excerpts from an evangelistic sermon series that Maxwell gave at Andrews University.  See the documentation at the reference link titled The Spiritualistic Philosophy of A. Graham Maxwell.

Welcome Shubee to 4TG.

Thanks for the link you posted:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/spiritualism.htm

I just read through it, and I agree that Graham Maxwell’s theology is very similar in many ways to the New Age course in miracles. I personally believe you are correct, that Maxwellian theology is a doctrine of demons.

He makes of no effect the wrath of God. The crucifixion loses it’s meaning and the true gospel is denied.

There is a discussion forum at http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com that constantly stresses this theology as “the good news about God”. This is a false gospel that will only lead its followers down the broad road that leads to destruction as Jesus talks about in Matthew 7:12,13.

However, Maxwell uses Ellen White where she seems to agree with him, but he ignores the statements of Ellen which would be in direct conflict with him.

Thanks for sharing.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Ron Corson

I just posted the following on my blog

In a recent comment posted on the For The Gospel Blog I saw the following from Stan

In particular this part:

I just read through it, and I agree that Graham Maxwell’s theology is very similar in many ways to the New Age course in miracles. I personally believe you are correct, that Maxwellian theology is a doctrine of demons.

He makes of no effect the wrath of God. The crucifixion loses it’s meaning and the true gospel is denied.

What he read through is an article whose supposition is that Graham Maxwell’s theology is spiritualism and is similar to the New Age philosophy of a “Course in Miracles”. Which is about as accurate as saying Hitler and Gandhi were vegetarians so their religious philosophies are the same. I am not posting the link to Eugene Shubert’s site or article because I think it is a repulsive site to any Christian. I have had contact with Eugene on various forums and he has even managed to be banned from the most open Adventist forum on the internet Atomorrow.com a site which ranges from ultra traditional SDA’s to Atheists yet all have an Adventist connection. So you have to be really obnoxious to get banned from that forum.

I have many times referenced or linked to For The Gospel Blog and as such I was really disappointed in Stan to see him support Eugene’s position which as he recently posted on an Adventist forum is that Graham “Maxwell’s Demonic theology”.  Eugene uses Stan’s comment on the For the Gospel blog to support his presentation that Maxwell is a demon among us and if anyone thinks Maxwell is a “fine Christian gentleman” they are not fit to interpret the Bible.

The trouble is seen so often among the more fundamentalist of Christians that if one differs in an interpretation such as the atonement that difference is enough to declare another Christian as not merely wrong but as an agent of Satan. In this case the latter Middle Ages interpretation known as the Penal/Substitutionary theory of the Atonement. It is assumed to be the only possible view of atonement theories even though the history of the Christian church has gone through many different theories. Today the more fundamentalist minded have determined there is only one view and it is that God poured out His wrath on Jesus Christ (who is God) on the cross. Even though there is not one New Testament verse to indicate that the wrath of God was poured out on Christ and there is also not one New Testament verse to indicate that Jesus paid the penalty for our sin.  Tradition has taken the place of Biblical doctrine and when tradition rules it seems to become easier to declare those of different interpretations to be demons. The Roman Catholic Church gave us very dramatic testimony to this type of belief as it killed and tortured those who sought to bring the Bible into the language of the common man or those who disagreed with the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church whether in science or philosophy.

I had a good deal of respect for Stan over at For The Gospel but his comment has no place in the thinking Christians mind. We should not be defining fellow Christians as demoniac. Especially when his basis for the statements are so terrible misinformed. Christians should be free to disagree without the need to call someone so terribly hurtful. Not just personally hurtful but hurtful to the other Christians in the world; Hurtful also to those who know the person, and those who agree with the ideas or even just some of the ideas. As much as I disagree with people such as Neil T. Anderson, or Benny Hinn I do not doubt that they are Christians and they love God. They may hurt the cause of Christ but then I am sure that every one of us has hurt the cause of Christ by what we have done or said at times. That does not make us the servants of Satan. We all still see through the glass darkly we have no business judging other’s Christianity by our dark and distorted view through the glass.

The Penal/Substitutionary theory has internal problems and pleading to tradition does nothing to help solve the problems or grow in our Christian understanding. While I don’t agree with Maxwell’s views on the subject I do agree with his overall conclusion God is not the kind of person who says obey me or I will kill you. As such we can’t simply ignore the Penal view’s problems especially in the postmodern world. It is why I prepared the article entitled “What is Wrong with the Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement.”

If Stan would like to explore his view and my view of the Atonement I would be happy to offer my blog http://cafesda.blogspot.com
for the discussion. The view one has of the Atonement says a lot about the kind of God they worship. The kind of God one worships says a lot to the people of the world who we are trying to reach.

Hi Ron,

Welcome back.

I can’t help but notice the contradiction in your plea to Stan about voicing disagreement with other Christians while you do the same with Eugene Shubert. I’d like to suggest that we interact with the ideas these men put forward rather than automatically give latitude to a brother’s teachings just because he calls himself a Christ-follower. Scripture is replete with warnings to test new teachings or prophecies, lest we be led astray by that which is not of God, and we take these warnings seriously here. Incidentally, I have not read Shubert’s article, but I cannot find strong support either in Scripture or in 2000 years of Christian scholarship for Maxwell’s “moral influence theory”.

As to your assertion that the New Testament does not teach the substitutionary atonement, I think 2 Corinthians 5:20-21 and Romans 3:23-26 say otherwise.

Greg

Hi Ron,

First of all, thanks for reading our blog and finding the comment I made above.

As to my response to Shubey, I want to make it abundantly clear that I don’t support Shubey or his blog or forum. I don’t endorse his brand of right wing Adventism.

I did find it very interesting that new age and liberal views of God and the atonement are very similar.

I spent a lot of time listening to Provonsha, whose theology is similar to Maxwell’s while I was in medical school, and I have spent too much time reading Maxwell’s disciples on http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com.

Graham Maxwell teaches that there is no literal lake of fire that will punish the wicked. He simply denies the doctrine of the wrath of God, and this is a gospel that Satan would love. If Satan can get people believeing that there is no just punishment for their evil deeds, then folks will see no need of a Savior and salvation. Frankly, before I was converted, I wished that there was no such thing as a lake of fire as taught in Revelation 21:8, and if I could be convinced of that, then I could just go about my merry way really living it up. I certainly wouldn’t have bothered with any time worrying about religion or even caring about the things of God.

It was only when God drew me irresistably one night while partying on a cruise ship to a Gideon Bible in the drawer, that I was led to the gospel of Matthew and after several nights of reading I came to the story of the crucifixion, and God brought me to faith when I realized that Christ took the penalty I deserved, and that Christ suffered the second death in my place.

Jesus makes this statement in Matthew 26:

26) Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28for this is my BLOOD of the covenant, which is poured out FOR MANY for the FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
-----------------------------------------------------

What would be the point of Jesus own statement saying that His blood will be poured out for many for forgiveness of sins, if this were not a substitutionary act?

Then we have the whole Levitical system which pointed to Christ’s sacrifice, and this is explained so well in the book of Hebrews “Without the shedding of blood is no remission of sins”.

The obvious and plain sense of so many texts in the NT clearly point to the substitutionary model for the atonement.

I know from observation and experience that the gospel of Maxwell and Provonsha will not have the power to truly save sinners. We had a week of prayer at college where one of these teachers gave the sermons. There was no moving of hearts toward repentance and salvation when that gospel is preached, but other weeks of prayer where the gospel was taught in the terms of the substitutionary atonement, then God honored that type of preaching with evidence of salvation.

Most evangelical and Reformed scholars regard the traditional penal doctrine of the atonement as an essential of the Christian faith, and anyone denying the substitutionary atonement is regarded as teaching a false gospel.

The title of this thread is Piper’s Christ exalting grammar, and John Piper has written extensively on the doctrine of the atonement and his web site http://www.desiringgod.org

He comments on the blasphemous statement of Stephen Chalke who called the traditional doctrine of the atonement “cosmic child abuse”.

God chose to take the punishment due us and take this punishment on Himself in the person of Christ, so we could be saved. I am eternally grateful for this.

I think it is a dangerous thing to fight against this doctrine that has stood the test of time and is clearly supported by scripture.

What is it about the crucifixion of Christ and the message that Christ died for us that causes such a violent reaction in so many people?

1 Corinthians 1:18-25 tells us why this is:

18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
---------------------------------------------------

The message of Christ and Him crucified can only make sense in the context of the whole sacrificial system of the Old Testament, and then applied in the context of Christ being our sinbearer.

What sense does it make for Christ to die just as a demonstration of the love of God only?

It is very offensive to the natural man that Christ would bear the wrath of God for sinners--a righteous man suffering for the guilty. This concept is very offensive as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians.

The bloodless atonement and a gospel that denies the wrath of God and punishment on the wicked is definitely a false gospel and I must assume that those teaching this gospel are teaching a different gospel, and I can have no confidence that these people are Christians.

Stan

Ron Corson wrote:

“As much as I disagree with people such as Neil T. Anderson, or Benny Hinn I do not doubt that they are Christians and they love God. They may hurt the cause of Christ but then I am sure that every one of us has hurt the cause of Christ by what we have done or said at times. That does not ....”
------------------------------------------------------

Ron,

How much have you seen of Benny Hinn or studied about his ministry?

Benny Hinn is a false prophet.

True born again believers do not act like Benny Hinn.

The number of false prophecies and heresies that Benny Hinn has taught is innumerable.

By not exposing the false teaching of the likes of Benny Hinn, we only encourage their false teaching.

As Jesus said “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord...”

Jesus will say to many of these false teachers “I never knew you”.

I don’t have time tonight to point out specific examples of Benny Hinn’s false teachings, but they are well documented elsewhere.

Stan

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]How much have you seen of Benny Hinn or studied about his ministry?

Benny Hinn is a false prophet.

True born again believers do not act like Benny Hinn.

The number of false prophecies and heresies that Benny Hinn has taught is innumerable.

By not exposing the false teaching of the likes of Benny Hinn, we only encourage their false teaching.

As Jesus said “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord...”

Jesus will say to many of these false teachers “I never knew you”.

I don’t have time tonight to point out specific examples of Benny Hinn’s false teachings, but they are well documented elsewhere.

Stan,

I have assembled some excellent documentation on Benny Hinn. See http://www.everythingimportant.org/Benny_Hinn

Thanks Shubee for the Benny Hinn links. They are very good and prove without a shadow of a doubt that Benny Hinn is a wolf in sheep’s clothing

Stan

Shubee,

I have just gone to your forum and clicked on this link about the trinity and the nature of Christ:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=122

It seems quite clear that you don’t accept the fact that Jesus is equal with God, and it appears that you are denying the doctrine of the Trinity.

I appreciate the links to Benny Hinn, but it is true that Benny Hinn also teaches an aberrant view of the Trinity.

John 1:1-3 is abundantly clear that Jesus was the instrument of creation, and the text specifically says that Jesus was God.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have a similar view to the view you expressed, and they even came up with their own translation to avoid the problem of John 1.

How does your view differ from the JW’s?

Stan