Shubee - 06 July 2009 03:43 AM

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.

The consistency about which I spoke had to do with having the same attitude toward two categories of people who, after the standards of orthodoxy fall short of meeting them. I don’t share your view that the pioneers formulations you cited are orthodox, but that’s another subject. From my perspective, regarding the adventist pioneers as Christians is no different than regarding Graham Maxwell as a fine Christian. Here is the consistency I see.

On the other side, Dr. Ford’s attitude towards the Investigative Judgment comes from the fact that this doctrine turns the free, unconditional grace of God into a conditional affair in which works are mixed with grace. And regarding messages channeled directly from demons, I’m not excluding the possibitlity that the adventist teaching about the scapegoat which replaces Jesus with Satan in the work of atonement is a doctrine of demons. It gives credit to Satan for something Jesus did. Satan taking credit for Jesus’ unique role as the sacrifice of atonement is striking at the heart of the gospel of penal substitutionary atonement. It’s not something less serious than Graham Maxwell’s theory. Both views destroy the penal substitution.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 06 July 2009 10:54 AM

I don’t share your view that the pioneers formulations you cited are orthodox, but that’s another subject.

I didn’t use the word orthodox for what I cited. I said it was biblical. Are you exalting tradition above Scripture?

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 06 July 2009 10:54 AM

From my perspective, regarding the adventist pioneers as Christians is no different than regarding Graham Maxwell as a fine Christian.

So do you agree or disagree with Dr. Desmond Ford?

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 06 July 2009 10:54 AM

I’m not excluding the possibitlity that the adventist teaching about the scapegoat which replaces Jesus with Satan in the work of atonement is a doctrine of demons.

And from my perspective, you are ascribing the work of God to Satan. Now, please don’t get me wrong. The point I’m making isn’t that you can’t be saved. Rather, I’m satisfied that you are openly repudiating the book, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, specifically chapter 7 (questions 34 and 35 are on the scapegoat), which is widely regarded by evangelicals as acceptable.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 06 July 2009 10:54 AM

On the other side, Dr. Ford’s attitude towards the Investigative Judgment comes from the fact that this doctrine turns the free, unconditional grace of God into a conditional affair in which works are mixed with grace.

If you can find a New Age source where there’s an undisputed instance of a channeled demon explaining the Investigative Judgment with a strikingly similar meaning to what Ellen G. White taught, then I’d say that you have a good case. Until then, I think you’re more alarmed by imagined demons than real ones.

I’m standing pat on QOD and I will not be giving up the Bible for traditions. I think that you should take your complaints to the evangelicals.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 06 July 2009 10:54 AM

Shubee - 06 July 2009 03:43 AM

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.

The consistency about which I spoke had to do with having the same attitude toward two categories of people who, after the standards of orthodoxy fall short of meeting them. I don’t share your view that the pioneers formulations you cited are orthodox, but that’s another subject. From my perspective, regarding the adventist pioneers as Christians is no different than regarding Graham Maxwell as a fine Christian. Here is the consistency I see.

On the other side, Dr. Ford’s attitude towards the Investigative Judgment comes from the fact that this doctrine turns the free, unconditional grace of God into a conditional affair in which works are mixed with grace. And regarding messages channeled directly from demons, I’m not excluding the possibitlity that the adventist teaching about the scapegoat which replaces Jesus with Satan in the work of atonement is a doctrine of demons. It gives credit to Satan for something Jesus did. Satan taking credit for Jesus’ unique role as the sacrifice of atonement is striking at the heart of the gospel of penal substitutionary atonement. It’s not something less serious than Graham Maxwell’s theory. Both views destroy the penal substitution.

Gabriel

So you are saying that you want to be like Eugene here and pronounce anyone not agreeing with your take on a given doctrine as “non-Christian?”

Protestant 101 - 09 July 2009 07:04 PM

So you are saying that you want to be like Eugene here and pronounce anyone not agreeing with your take on a given doctrine as “non-Christian?”

Clearly, the three of us represent three sharply dissimilar points of view. I believe that Christians should be alarmed by the influence of real demons in the church, not imaginary ones. Gabriel Proksch is obviously more concerned about imagined demons, not the ones that are unquestionably dictating messages straight from Satan. And you are saying that we shouldn’t judge between real and imagined demons.

Shubee - 09 July 2009 09:14 PM

Protestant 101 - 09 July 2009 07:04 PM

So you are saying that you want to be like Eugene here and pronounce anyone not agreeing with your take on a given doctrine as “non-Christian?”

Clearly, the three of us represent three sharply dissimilar points of view. I believe that Christians should be alarmed by the influence of real demons in the church, not imaginary ones. Gabriel Proksch is obviously more concerned about imagined demons, not the ones that are unquestionably dictating messages straight from Satan. And you are saying that we shouldn’t judge between real and imagined demons.

I am saying you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  You have no idea what the gospel is, and you have no good news. (IMHO)

Protestant 101 - 10 July 2009 04:09 PM

Shubee - 09 July 2009 09:14 PM

Clearly, the three of us represent three sharply dissimilar points of view. I believe that Christians should be alarmed by the influence of real demons in the church, not imaginary ones. Gabriel Proksch is obviously more concerned about imagined demons, not the ones that are unquestionably dictating messages straight from Satan. And you are saying that we shouldn’t judge between real and imagined demons.

I am saying you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

If you disagree with my approval of Stan Ermshar’s appraisal on page 1, then please state your judgment of the devilish interpretations of the atonement as taught by pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualists and the remarkably similar messages, written out by Dr. Helen Schucman in the New Age book, A Course in Miracles. Also, please specify how much of a discernable unholy influence you recognize in Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, specifically chapter 7, which, as I have said, is widely regarded by evangelicals as acceptable.

Protestant 101 - 10 July 2009 04:09 PM

You have no idea what the gospel is, and you have no good news.

My understanding of the gospel tells me that we are not to fraternize with demons in human form. It tells me that pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism is something to be alarmed about. The good news is that when you see Bible scholars revere spiritualistic philosophers and call them fine Christian gentlemen, it is surely a sign of the end of the world.

Shubee - 10 July 2009 05:33 PM

Protestant 101 - 10 July 2009 04:09 PM

Shubee - 09 July 2009 09:14 PM

Clearly, the three of us represent three sharply dissimilar points of view. I believe that Christians should be alarmed by the influence of real demons in the church, not imaginary ones. Gabriel Proksch is obviously more concerned about imagined demons, not the ones that are unquestionably dictating messages straight from Satan. And you are saying that we shouldn’t judge between real and imagined demons.

I am saying you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

If you disagree with my approval of Stan Ermshar’s appraisal on page 1, then please state your judgment of the devilish interpretations of the atonement as taught by pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualists and the remarkably similar messages, written out by Dr. Helen Schucman in the New Age book, A Course in Miracles. Also, please specify how much of a discernable unholy influence you recognize in Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, specifically chapter 7, which, as I have said, is widely regarded by evangelicals as acceptable.

Protestant 101 - 10 July 2009 04:09 PM

You have no idea what the gospel is, and you have no good news.

My understanding of the gospel tells me that we are not to fraternize with demons in human form. It tells me that pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism is something to be alarmed about. The good news is that when you see Bible scholars revere spiritualistic philosophers and call them fine Christian gentlemen, it is surely a sign of the end of the world.

Your writings make absolutely no sense.  I also noticed that your great “evidence” against Maxwell is mostly “taped comments” he allegedly made at a sermon once - something that the public has no way to verify either for accuracy or for context. A very typical ploy of cult mentality. The only thing you have proved is that you have worked hard over the years to build your anti-Adventist cult ministry.

I have heard Ford speak too, and I agree with Gabriel or Stan that he has a gentle spirit when he responds; of course, I don’t agree with Ford in some respects; but I would agree that he is a Christian; as is Maxwell. You have provided no proof to the contrary.

The Bible tells us how that spirtualism has two main doctrines; neither of which Maxwell teaches.  The only “demons” I see are in your whacky theologicical rantings. You have absolutely no good news for anyone. True to form with all the other anti-Adventist cults, you garble the writings of Ellen White, allegedly “quoting” all of your “proof” and totally bypassing the comprehensive, collective sum of a given teaching from her writings.

Stan was right in his view on Ford and how he has a gentle demeanor.  As Christians, we are responsible to recognize the right, as well as the wrong in anyone’s doctrine or ministry. To blow that up into a “fraternizing with demons” tirade is devoid of the spirit of Christ. Your psychopomp against almost everyone is a smear against all of Christianity that is bound to work against the cause of Christ, no matter where you present it.

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

Your writings make absolutely no sense.

You must mean ‘made no sense to you.’

Stan Ermshar 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

It’s obvious that Stan understands.

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

I also noticed that your great “evidence” against Maxwell is mostly “taped comments” he allegedly made at a sermon once - something that the public has no way to verify either for accuracy or for context.

That’s not a problem. Graham Maxwell has such a huge following that hangs on his every word, I bet it would be easy to get a confirmation of his words from many of his loyal supporters at http://pineknoll.org/cag/

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

The only thing you have proved is that you have worked hard over the years to build your anti-Adventist cult ministry.

Wrong again. I manage a pro-Adventist ministry.

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

I have heard Ford speak too, and I agree with Gabriel or Stan that he has a gentle spirit

So what. Graham Maxwell has a much larger following than Des Ford ever had and Maxwell followers surpass Ford followers in every category of praise that borders on idolatry. 

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

I don’t agree with Ford in some respects; but I would agree that he is a Christian; as is Maxwell. You have provided no proof to the contrary.

“The Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1). But as you so sincerely admitted, you didn’t understand the evidence.

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

Stan was right in his view on Ford

So far, I only agree with Stan’s view on Maxwell and the reasons for Stan’s keen judgment.

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

As Christians, we are responsible to recognize the right, as well as the wrong in anyone’s doctrine or ministry.

It goes without saying that a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day and therefore there might be a gazillion things that I might agree on with Des Ford and Graham Maxwell purely by accident. For example, I am thankful for your endorsement of Graham Maxwell. Your testimony is probably meaningful to those who truly understand him.

On the other hand, we disagree about Scripture. I must say, show me from God’s word where the Apostle Paul acknowledged anything truthful in the teachings of Hymenaeus and Alexander. Nevertheless, one thing is very certain. You haven’t said one polite thing to me on this entire thread.

Shubee - 12 July 2009 10:08 AM

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

Your writings make absolutely no sense.

You must mean ‘made no sense to you.’

Stan Ermshar 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

It’s obvious that Stan understands.

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

I also noticed that your great “evidence” against Maxwell is mostly “taped comments” he allegedly made at a sermon once - something that the public has no way to verify either for accuracy or for context.

That’s not a problem. Graham Maxwell has such a huge following that hangs on his every word, I bet it would be easy to get a confirmation of his words from many of his loyal supporters at http://pineknoll.org/cag/

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

The only thing you have proved is that you have worked hard over the years to build your anti-Adventist cult ministry.

Wrong again. I manage a pro-Adventist ministry.

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

I have heard Ford speak too, and I agree with Gabriel or Stan that he has a gentle spirit

So what. Graham Maxwell has a much larger following than Des Ford ever had and Maxwell followers surpass Ford followers in every category of praise that borders on idolatry. 

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

I don’t agree with Ford in some respects; but I would agree that he is a Christian; as is Maxwell. You have provided no proof to the contrary.

“The Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1). But as you so sincerely admitted, you didn’t understand the evidence.

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

Stan was right in his view on Ford

So far, I only agree with Stan’s view on Maxwell and the reasons for Stan’s keen judgment.

Protestant 101 - 11 July 2009 01:57 AM

As Christians, we are responsible to recognize the right, as well as the wrong in anyone’s doctrine or ministry.

It goes without saying that a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day and therefore there might be a gazillion things that I might agree on with Des Ford and Graham Maxwell purely by accident. For example, I am thankful for your endorsement of Graham Maxwell. Your testimony is probably meaningful to those who truly understand him.

On the other hand, we disagree about Scripture. I must say, show me from God’s word where the Apostle Paul acknowledged anything truthful in the teachings of Hymenaeus and Alexander. Nevertheless, one thing is very certain. You haven’t said one polite thing to me on this entire thread.

And of course, your web site, and all of your comments here are “polite?” If you want to start calling objections/disagreements to the poison your are spreading “impolite” then it only adds one more proof to the many of the terrible falsehood of your anti-Adventist cult ministry.

NBL.016.003
Artificial Lights

Artificial lights may appear, claiming to come from heaven, but they cannot shine forth as the star of holiness, the star of heavenly brightness, to guide the feet of the pilgrim and the stranger into the city of our God.  Shall we allow heaven’s bright beams to be eclipsed by artificial lights?  False lights will take the place of the true, and many souls will be for a time deceived. God forbid that it should be so with us. The true light now shineth, and will light up the windows of the soul that are opened heavenward.-- Letter 43, 1901 .

Protestant 101 - 12 July 2009 01:54 PM

And of course, your web site, and all of your comments here are “polite?”

I confess that comparing the teachings of a demon with the doctrines of A. Graham Maxwell is a great insult that must deeply hurt any Seventh-day Adventist that imputes righteousness to his church and trusts in that relationship for his salvation.

Protestant 101 - 12 July 2009 01:54 PM

disagreements to the poison your are spreading

The antidote to blissful ignorance—or anything harmful to happiness in this life—can be called poison. Yet, I am simply obeying God’s word. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them” (Ephesians 5:11).

Protestant 101 - 12 July 2009 01:54 PM

the terrible falsehood of your anti-Adventist cult ministry.

Regretfully, I am telling the truth and prophecy has been fulfilled. What would you have me do, lie for God?  I have no control over the undeniable parallels between the teachings of demons and the doctrines of Maxwell.