Stan,

On 21 October 2007 you wrote:

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.

Thanks for sharing.

Stan

Recently you wrote:

I had heard Ford speak many times before, but there was something about this video that really impressed me. I saw a man who had been through the wars FOR THE GOSPEL. Yet he still has an ever gentle spirit. He truly manifests the spirit of Christ. (23 September 2008).

Your assessment of the spirit of Christ seems terribly inconsistent.

Desmond Ford wrote:

TWO UNIVERSITIES
Let me give you an illustration. There’s a denomination that has a couple of universities in the United States. At one university they teach the Protestant view of the meaning of the cross. That is, the cross was an atonement. Christ was our Substitute and our Representative.

The same denomination has another university on the opposite side of the country. There are many fine Christians there also. However, they teach a different theory. They teach what is known as the Moral Influence Theory. In that theory, the cross of Christ wasn’t really necessary. God did it as a gesture, to show he loves us. But God could have forgiven sin without the cross.

The motive behind the theory is, ‘We don’t want a butchershop religion, a slaughterhouse religion. Don’t talk too much about the blood.’

That is the Moral Influence Theory. It is taught by men and women whom I respect greatly and love dearly. They’re good men and women. But this teaching has never been acceptable to either Catholic or Protestant theologians because it’s non-biblical.

Forget for the moment that Desmond Ford greatly respects those who have fallen away from the faith and that are deceived by deceitful spirits and teach the doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1). Doesn’t your praise for someone that greatly respects heretical teachers of demonic doctrines indicate a serious lack of spiritual discernment on your part?

Let’s get this straight.

You criticize Stan for lacking spiritual discernment when he appreciates Desmond Ford’s articulation of the gospel, all because Ford has the gall to respect individuals he disagrees with?

Shubee, you sound like you are trying to play “gotcha” to expose Stan, but the only person you’ve exposed is yourself.

Greg

Shubee,

I really don’t have too much to add to what Greg said, and I think your attack on Desmond Ford is a truly cheap shot.

Here is a quote from Ford’s statement above:

“There are many fine Christians there also. However, they teach a different theory. They teach what is known as the Moral Influence Theory. In that theory, the cross of Christ wasn’t really necessary. God did it as a gesture, to show he loves us. But God could have forgiven sin without the cross.

The motive behind the theory is, ‘We don’t want a butchershop religion, a slaughterhouse religion. Don’t talk too much about the blood.’

That is the Moral Influence Theory. It is taught by men and women whom I respect greatly and love dearly. They’re good men and women. But this teaching has never been acceptable to either Catholic or Protestant theologians because it’s non-biblical.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------

You have to understand that Desmond Ford is one of the most gentle and gracious Christian gentleman anyone would want to meet. By the way, Shubee, have you met Dr. Ford?

He basically says the same thing I said except in a more gracious way. He is saying that the moral influence theory is another gospel and is unbiblical.

The irony of your post is quite interesting. First of all, did you check out the 10 minute video on youtube by Ford?

He was speaking in the hotbed of this false gospel, and that was in Loma Linda. He is not afraid to preach the pure gospel where false gospels abound.

Also Shubee, don’t you have anytning else better to do with your time than to nitpick, and pick arguments? I am not sure how trying to expose Dr. Ford falsely and trying to find an inconsisitency helps the cause of Christ?
Do you have something against Dr. Ford?

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 01 December 2008 11:07 PM

I think your attack on Desmond Ford is a truly cheap shot.

cheap shot

noun
1. an unnecessarily aggressive and unfair remark directed at a defenseless person.

I can’t imagine why my questions are unnecessarily aggressive. Where is your Scriptural reasoning? I believe that the necessity of my questions originates from a valid theological perspective. Where is your rebuttal to my theology?

“Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3.

“Call rebellion by its right name, and apostasy by its right name.” 1BC 1114.

“It is high time that we put on the whole armor of God, and work earnestly to keep Satan from gaining any further advantage. Angels of God, that excel in strength, are waiting for us to call them to our aid, that our faith may not be eclipsed by the fierceness of the conflict. Renewed energy is now needed. Vigilant action is called for. Indifference and sloth will result in the loss of personal religion and of heaven.” 1SM 195-6.

“Those who are not interested in the cause of God on earth can never sing the song of redeeming love above.” EW 50.

“All will be shaken out who are not willing to take a bold and unyielding stand for the truth and to sacrifice for God and His cause.” EW 50.

The master said: “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, beholds the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees, and the wolf snatches them, and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling, and is not concerned about the sheep.” John 10:11-13 NASB.

“We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” 1 John 3:16.

“Will the men in our institutions keep silent, allowing insidious fallacies to be promulgated to the ruin of souls?” “What are God’s servants doing to raise the barrier of a ‘Thus saith the Lord’ against this evil? The enemy’s agents are working unceasingly to prevail against the truth. Where are the faithful guardians of the Lord’s flocks? Where are His watchmen? Are they standing on the high tower, giving the danger signal, or are they allowing the peril to pass unheeded?” 1SM 195, 194.

“If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God.” 3T 281.

I also don’t see anything unfair about my remark. You yourself have agreed that Maxwellian theology is a doctrine of demons. Why are you so certain that Bible scholars who warmly receive a false prophet in the name of a false prophet do not receive a false prophet’s reward?

I certainly agree that Ford is a defenseless person. That’s because he has no defense. It’s not because he can’t stand up for himself.

Stan Ermshar - 01 December 2008 11:07 PM

You have to understand that Desmond Ford is one of the most gentle and gracious Christian gentleman anyone would want to meet.

The Apostle Paul certainly didn’t receive Hymenaeus and Alexander warmly and say that he greatly appreciated their loving kindness (1 Timothy 1:19-20, cf. 2 Timothy 2:17-18).

Stan Ermshar - 01 December 2008 11:07 PM

By the way, Shubee, have you met Dr. Ford?

Yes. I was once in a conversation with a few chaps, explaining to them why Graham Maxwell’s theology fulfills Ellen White’s prophecy about the omega of deadly heresies. Des Ford walked by about 3 times in 15 minutes and, each time he heard me refer to Graham Maxwell, he interrupted saying, “A fine Christian gentleman!”

Stan Ermshar - 01 December 2008 11:07 PM

He basically says the same thing I said except in a more gracious way. He is saying that the moral influence theory is another gospel and is unbiblical.

That is indeed very gracious since Graham Maxwell really teaches pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism.

Stan Ermshar - 01 December 2008 11:07 PM

The irony of your post is quite interesting. First of all, did you check out the 10 minute video on youtube by Ford?

Yes.

Stan Ermshar - 01 December 2008 11:07 PM

He was speaking in the hotbed of this false gospel, and that was in Loma Linda. He is not afraid to preach the pure gospel where false gospels abound.

The fact that so many pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualists have great respect for Dr. Desmond Ford is proof positive that Ford’s peaceful tolerance of demonic theology isn’t a part of the true gospel at all. 

Stan Ermshar - 01 December 2008 11:07 PM

Also Shubee, don’t you have anytning else better to do with your time than to nitpick, and pick arguments?

Ellen White, when investigating the Living Temple, trembled about the coming of a terrible omega. I had a similar but stronger prophetic experience while studying the omega prophecy in Scripture. And not many months later I had a vision about the pantheism of John Harvey Kellogg. I believe that I should be communicating what I have learned about the alpha and omega deception. And I have an excellent proof that my experience is valid. God has given me incredible new light that answers the greatest theological riddles in Adventism: Daniel, Revelation (3 scenarios, the 3 angels’ messages, 7 churches, 666 and the Investigative Judgment), the human nature of Christ and the Trinity. I would give you a link to those messages but this forum doesn’t allow it.

Stan Ermshar - 01 December 2008 11:07 PM

Do you have something against Dr. Ford?

I’m just obeying a neglected piece of the gospel. “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” Proverbs 8:13. “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:11.

Shubee wrote this:

“Ellen White, when investigating the Living Temple, trembled about the coming of a terrible omega. I had a similar but stronger prophetic experience while studying the omega prophecy in Scripture. And not many months later I had a vision about the pantheism of John Harvey Kellogg. I believe that I should be communicating what I have learned about the alpha and omega deception. And I have an excellent proof that my experience is valid. God has given me incredible new light that answers the greatest theological riddles in Adventism: Daniel, Revelation (3 scenarios, the 3 angels’ messages, 7 churches, 666 and the Investigative Judgment), the human nature of Christ and the Trinity. I would give you a link to those messages but this forum doesn’t allow it. “
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shubee,

You really have delusions of grandeur if you think you are getting prophetic messages from God. It is unlikely any credible blog or forum would post your links to those messages.

Stan

Shubee,

I do appreciate very much the link to Ford’s website with his excellent explanation of why the moral influence theory is unbiblical:

http://www.goodnewsunlimited.org.au/home/skypage.php?keyid=640&parentkeyid=164

This may be worth a discussion on another thread.

Stan

Shubee - 02 December 2008 10:31 AM

Stan Ermshar - 01 December 2008 11:07 PM

Ellen White, when investigating the Living Temple, trembled about the coming of a terrible omega. I had a similar but stronger prophetic experience while studying the omega prophecy in Scripture. And not many months later I had a vision about the pantheism of John Harvey Kellogg. I believe that I should be communicating what I have learned about the alpha and omega deception. And I have an excellent proof that my experience is valid. God has given me incredible new light that answers the greatest theological riddles in Adventism: Daniel, Revelation (3 scenarios, the 3 angels’ messages, 7 churches, 666 and the Investigative Judgment), the human nature of Christ and the Trinity. I would give you a link to those messages but this forum doesn’t allow it.

Stan Ermshar - 01 December 2008 11:07 PM

Do you have something against Dr. Ford?

I’m just obeying a neglected piece of the gospel. “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” Proverbs 8:13. “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:11.

Incase anyone here is unaware; Eugene Shubert, author of this post, is not a Seventh-day Adventist; and he does not speak for the Adventist Church, nor is he supported in any way by Adventists.

Incase anyone here is unaware; Eugene Shubert, author of this post, is not a Seventh-day Adventist; and he does not speak for the Adventist Church, nor is he supported in any way by Adventists.

Just in case someone else isn’t aware, the title of this thread is “A Millerite Christian Questions Stan Ermshar.”

Shubee - 03 July 2009 09:04 PM

Incase anyone here is unaware; Eugene Shubert, author of this post, is not a Seventh-day Adventist; and he does not speak for the Adventist Church, nor is he supported in any way by Adventists.

Just in case someone else isn’t aware, the title of this thread is “A Millerite Christian Questions Stan Ermshar.”

You have finally set up your own denomination.  Congratulations.  Do you have any followers yet?

Hi all

As much as I respect Dr. Ford’s position taken regarding the gospel, I can’t follow him in qualifying Graham Maxwell as a “fine Christian”. A Christian who’s teaching a false Gospel it’s an oxymoron. Maybe Dr. Ford’s view on this topic is influenced by the Adventist’ view that their arian anti-trinitarian pioneers are Christians. In either case, an essential element of the Christian faith is denied. either Christ’s penal substitution or Christ’s full divinity and unity with the Father, or Holy Spirit personality. As long as adventists consider James White, Joseph Bates, Uriah Smith and other arians as Christians but criticize Dr. Ford’s for his view regarding Graham Maxwell, they are self-condemned. They regard the denial of one of essential Christian truth as having no direct bearing on one’s salvation.

Gabriel

Protestant 101 - 03 July 2009 09:22 PM

You have finally set up your own denomination.  Congratulations.  Do you have any followers yet?

If you haven’t noticed, this thread is about Stan Ermshar as questioned by me. Unfortunately, I do not control a denomination. I am only a member of a private 501-C3 religious foundation. However, the founder of that organization has a clear understanding of Bible prophecy and is enthusiastic about writing a commentary on the book of Revelation from my point of view. I have agreed to be the editor and we plan to start in a few short weeks. There are many in agreement with my unique theology. For instance, one Elder of the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches my interpretation of Daniel and Revelation and claims to have had inspired dreams about it. Is God beginning to confirm my message through signs and wonders? You can find the Adventist’s testimony at my website.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 July 2009 10:01 PM

As much as I respect Dr. Ford’s position taken regarding the gospel, I can’t follow him in qualifying Graham Maxwell as a “fine Christian”. A Christian who’s teaching a false Gospel it’s an oxymoron. Maybe Dr. Ford’s view on this topic is influenced by the Adventist’ view that their arian anti-trinitarian pioneers are Christians.

And to support your theory, perhaps you can argue that Seventh-day Adventists expect to be regarded as scapegoats.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 July 2009 10:01 PM

In either case, an essential element of the Christian faith is denied.

Denied by Dr. Desmond Ford and his illustrious colleague Dr. A. Graham Maxwell, right?

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 July 2009 10:01 PM

As long as adventists consider James White, Joseph Bates, Uriah Smith and other arians as Christians but criticize Dr. Ford’s for his view regarding Graham Maxwell, they are self-condemned.

I am a Millerite Christian. I am not aware of any Seventh-day Adventist that is critical of Dr. Ford’s camaraderie with Dr. A. Graham Maxwell. But I have seen followers of Graham Maxwell express great love and admiration for Desmond Ford.

Shubee - 03 July 2009 10:26 PM

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 July 2009 10:01 PM

As much as I respect Dr. Ford’s position taken regarding the gospel, I can’t follow him in qualifying Graham Maxwell as a “fine Christian”. A Christian who’s teaching a false Gospel it’s an oxymoron. Maybe Dr. Ford’s view on this topic is influenced by the Adventist’ view that their arian anti-trinitarian pioneers are Christians.

And to support your theory, perhaps you can argue that Seventh-day Adventists expect to be regarded as scapegoats.

Frankly, I don’t understand your logic.

Shubee - 03 July 2009 10:26 PM

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 July 2009 10:01 PM

In either case, an essential element of the Christian faith is denied.

Denied by Dr. Desmond Ford and his illustrious colleague Dr. A. Graham Maxwell, right?

Wrong, Dr. Ford does not deny an essential element of the Christian faith, Graham Maxwell and the adventist pioneers did. How Ford and adventists evaluate this situation, that’s another question.

Shubee - 03 July 2009 10:26 PM

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 July 2009 10:01 PM

As long as adventists consider James White, Joseph Bates, Uriah Smith and other arians as Christians but criticize Dr. Ford’s for his view regarding Graham Maxwell, they are self-condemned.

I am a Millerite Christian. I am not aware of any Seventh-day Adventist that is critical of Dr. Ford’s camaraderie with Dr. A. Graham Maxwell. But I have seen followers of Graham Maxwell express great love and admiration for Desmond Ford.

Shall I understand that you’re thinking that the adventist’s pioneers, by denying Trinity, were preaching a false Christ and consequently you’re not regarding them as “fine Christians”? I am not aware of any Seventh-day Adventist or Millerite Christian that is critical of the anti-trinitarian position of the pioneers and think that by their position they placed themselves beyond the borders of Christianity.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 04 July 2009 10:32 PM

Shubee - 03 July 2009 10:26 PM

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 July 2009 10:01 PM

Maybe Dr. Ford’s view on this topic is influenced by the Adventist’ view that their arian anti-trinitarian pioneers are Christians.

And to support your theory, perhaps you can argue that Seventh-day Adventists expect to be regarded as scapegoats.

Frankly, I don’t understand your logic.

You have imputed Dr. Ford’s sin of joyful camaraderie with antichrist to Adventists. Since your presupposition is faulty, its defense couldn’t possibly be logical.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 04 July 2009 10:32 PM

Dr. Ford does not deny an essential element of the Christian faith, Graham Maxwell and the adventist pioneers did. How Ford and adventists evaluate this situation, that’s another question.

We obviously imagine different standards for essential Christian faith. I don’t have much hope for those who praise pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualists.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 04 July 2009 10:32 PM

Shall I understand that you’re thinking that the adventist’s pioneers, by denying Trinity, were preaching a false Christ and consequently you’re not regarding them as “fine Christians”?

Any doctrine about Christ imperfectly taught is teaching a false Christ to some degree. I draw a line with interpretations of the atonement that are remarkably similar to what Dr. Helen Schucman received by channeling a spirit that claimed to be Christ.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 04 July 2009 10:32 PM

I am not aware of any Seventh-day Adventist or Millerite Christian that is critical of the anti-trinitarian position of the pioneers and think that by their position they placed themselves beyond the borders of Christianity.

I am critical of the anti-Trinitarian position of the pioneers but I’m not happy with the formulaic synthesis of traditional Trinitarianism. I see its imperfection. I’m not a fundamentalist so I don’t have any remarkable power to see or specify the precise border of Christianity. However, I do know Scripture well enough to recognize a doctrine of demons when I hear it.

Shubee - 05 July 2009 04:26 AM

You have imputed Dr. Ford’s sin of joyful camaraderie with antichrist to Adventists. Since your presupposition is faulty, its defense couldn’t possibly be logical.

I said “maybe”, advancing a possible explanation for Dr. Ford’s position,

Shubee - 05 July 2009 04:26 AM

We obviously imagine different standards for essential Christian faith. I don’t have much hope for those who praise pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualists.

Denial of Trinity is as much pan-Gnostic as denial of penal substitutionary atonement.

Shubee - 05 July 2009 04:26 AM

I am critical of the anti-Trinitarian position of the pioneers but I’m not happy with the formulaic synthesis of traditional Trinitarianism. I see its imperfection. I’m not a fundamentalist so I don’t have any remarkable power to see or specify the precise border of Christianity. However, I do know Scripture well enough to recognize the doctrine of demons when I hear it.

Denial of Trinity is a doctrine of demons as is the denial of penal substitutionary atonement. We need to apply the same standards to both people like Graham Maxwell and James White, Uriah Smith, Joseph Bates, J.N. Andrews. If you’re giving them a pass for their anti-trinitarian position, you’re in the same position as Dr. Ford’s giving Graham Maxwell’s a pass for his denial of the penal substitutionary atonement. But since you are not happy with the traditional formulations of Trinitarianism, it’s no wonder why you’re not understanding that Dr. Ford’s charitable judgment extends consistently toward both the anti-trinitarian pioneers and Graham Maxwell.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 05 July 2009 08:41 AM

We need to apply the same standards to both people like Graham Maxwell and James White, Uriah Smith, Joseph Bates, J.N. Andrews.

The problem is that we understand Bible standards differently. There is obviously no problem with applying the correct view of the Trinity to test the doctrines of the Adventist pioneers.

The following is from an Adventist Statement of faith that was published in 1874:

“1. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual Being, the Creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal; infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by His representative, the Holy Spirit. Psalm 139:7.

2. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the One by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist...."- Signs of the Times, June 4, 1874.

See http://www.restorationministry.com/tracts/are_sdas_advancing.htm

There is nothing unbiblical about that view of the Godhead. Consequently, as far as that commendable 1874 Adventist Statement of faith is concerned, the Adventist pioneers had a more correct view of the Three than Adventists do today.

JOSEPH BATES: Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being. I said to my father, “If you can convince me that we are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son, and also that I am my father, and you my son, then I can believe in the trinity."… In a few days I was immersed and joined the Christian Church.---Joseph Bates, The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates (Battle Creek, Mich.: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868).

JAMES WHITE: “The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, ‘let us make man in our image?’” - James White, Review and Herald, November 29, 1877.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 05 July 2009 08:41 AM

Dr. Ford’s charitable judgment extends consistently toward both the anti-trinitarian pioneers and Graham Maxwell.

As I see it, Dr. Ford has never met a demonic doctrine that he couldn’t live with peaceably. That doesn’t mean that Dr. Ford is consistent. While he is perfectly at peace with those in the Seventh-day Adventist church that teach messages remarkably similar to those channeled directly from demons, Dr. Ford is infamous among Adventists for his many years of being furiously provoked by Ellen G. White’s writings on the Investigative Judgment.