As with the questions "is Jesus fully God or fully man?" "Is God one or three?" "Is God just or merciful?" "Is God outside of time and space (infinate) or inside of time and space?" "Is God my personal God, or is He impersonal dealing with the entire universe?"

The answer to all of these are "Yes" but to have just one part of the question without the other would be wrong.

So with the distruction of the wicked, we have a oneness of active and passive. God is active in making himself visible to all, allowing the lost to see him in person and answer their questions even though he knows the results of them seeing him in person and seeing the roles they played. What is passive is that he does nothing different to them than what he does to you and me.

The forensic view has God active at the expence of passive, and thus only half the truth. The universalists or the God does not kill people has God passive at the expence of his all-powerful actvity and complete control and completely clearifying the issues of the Great Controversy.

My understanding, and my understanding of Graham Maxwell has the answer to the question "In the distruction of the wicked, is God active or passive?" being "Yes!"

Sorry Tom for the confusion, I do not put them together beyond them sometimes having the same issue of holding truth at the expence of the other part of the truth in siding with passive at the expence of active.

I think I named both of them because in the past I've studied the God does not kill view and compaired and contrasted that view with what I believe and compaired and contrasted that view with Graham Maxwell's teachings. This past month I found, bought and just finished reading a book, "The Hell Jesus Never Intended" which brings up a lot of excellent points (especially if you use the book to study Santification), but this book is actually teaching what some falsely accuse Graham Maxwell of teaching, and while the writer does not come right out and embrace universalism, he is open to being surprised to get to heaven and learn that universalism was indeed correct.

Since, except for being open to the possibility of universalism, this book is teaching what Graham Maxwell is falsely accused of teaching, I mentioned the two views in the same breath, and you are correct, I probably should have sepperated them. Once again please accept my appology.

Ok. I was just trying to understand what you were saying, because I wasn't following the logic. I think there is quite a lot of varitey among the God does not kill people, so it would be difficult to make sweeping statements.

I agree with what I think you said regarding universalists having some good ideas. I can especially understand their motivation if they do not understand that the soul is not immortal, so are thus forced to choose between universalism and God's torturing people in hell forever.

Regarding the fate of the wicked in the end, I've not heard an explanation that resinates with me better than Maxwell's.

quote:

---

Since, except for being open to the possibility of universalism, this book is teaching what Graham Maxwell is falsely accused of teaching,

---

I didn't understand this. Why the exception for the possibility of universalism? This makes it sound like Maxwell is open to the possibility of universalism. Did you write what you meant to, or am I misunderstanding something here?

What I am saying is that Graham Maxwell DOES NOT teach much of what he is accused of teaching by those trying to criticizise him, however, this book I just read "The Hell Jesus Never Intended" does teach those ideas. The critics of Graham Maxwell's theology has most likely come accross the ideas this book teaches, and have unjustly imposed these ideas upon Graham Maxwell.

So you're saying the whole book is false, and is comprised of two parts, the first part of which no one accuses Maxwell of teaching, and the second part of which Maxwell is (falsely) accused of teaching.

That's a bit confusing, but I think I got it.

I think almost universally truth is accused of as being false, and the reason is because those who don't understand it rally against a straw man they have created in their own mind. Rarely are the ideas of truth understood and rejected.

ok, I'll try to make this clearer, and thank you for continuing to ask for clearification!!! I appreciate it.

I first heard about Graham Maxwell when a friend of mine from high school began listening to his tapes. He was a new listener and did not do a good job explaining what he was learing, and it did not sound too good with me, and since I trusted my friend I figured that he would soon see problems with it and give it up.

Over the next few years I only had some quick contact here and there with my friend. A few years later I asked him about the Maxwell tapes and was surprised that he was still listening to them. So I wrote to my major professor at the Seminary to ask about Dr. Maxwell. The professor wrote back that he had not looked at Dr. Maxwell's works, but that there was another professor at the seminary who had looked into it, and the other professors would come to him for information, and that instead of getting second hand information from my professor, he recommended that I write to this other professor.

I have to admint I was dissapointed as I had read a book by the professor I was recommended to write to, and I was not impressed with his book, and after reading it I asked my professor if this other professor was a heratic.

Well, I wrote that other professor and received a letter that said "Actually I am not familiar with Graham Maxwell himself, but I've read part of Jack Provonsha's book 'You Can Come Home Again' but only read enough to realize that it is nothing more than Abalard's Moral Influence Theory, and I assume that he and Graham Maxwell both teach the same thing, and do not understand why the church leadership allows this heresy to continue without them doing anything about it. If you read the book "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott, you will know everything you need to know about what Graham Maxwell teaches and how to answer it."

I bought Stott's book and studied it. I cam to agree with his conserns about the Moral Influence Theory, but I was equally uncomfortable with the view of the atonement that Stott was teaching. I could not make either harmonize with what I knew about the Bible and Mrs. White.

Wondering if the Moral Influence Theory was as bad as Stott said it was, I went to a service by the New York Adventist Forum to listen to the pastor of a large Adventist church who believed in the Moral Influence Theory and was preaching on it. I did not like his sermon. I also looked at some books in the libarary that supported the Moral Influence Theory, and still did not like them.

I began including in my sermons and theological discussions complaints against Graham Maxwell, and when I next met up with my friend who was listening to the Maxwell tapes, I waxed ellegantly against Graham Maxwell. I was shocked when after listening to me, my friend said "But Graham Maxwell does not teach those things." Shortly after this I ended up getting a job in Loma Linda, moved out there, and decided that since I was in town I may as well listen to Graham Maxwell, and get what he says first hand.

Besides listening to Dr. Maxwell, I'd come up after class and ask him questions, and took his tapes out of the libarary to listen to while driving. Sometimes he would say something that sounded like the Moral Influence Theory, but then he would latter ballance out the statement. Sometimes while driving and listening to his tapes, he'd say something and I'd yell at the taperecorder in my car "What are you saying taht for? That's not what you believe!"

I would also read articles, such as those by Tim Crosby or the book "Adventist Hot Potatos" "Who's Got the Truth?" and "My Gripe with God" and others who's purpose was to oppose Dr. Maxwell's view. But I could not in his class nor tapes find evidence that he was teaching what these books and articles said he was teaching.

Dr. Maxwell would also deny teaching those things. He told me of a phone call he had with that Seminary Professor who I had written. Dr. Maxwell asked the professor what he had against Graham's teaching. The professor gave a list of things he felt was wrong with Graham's teacing, to which Graham replied "But I don't teach any of those things." The seminary professor replied "Oh yes you do." hung up the phone and refused all of Graham Maxwell's further attempts to call or visit him. Dr. Maxwell also talked about how two conference pressidents had made a list of points that they said Graham was teaching which was in error. These lists were being given to pastors and floating around. The lists basically said the same things, but one list had an additional point that was not on the other list. Dr. Maxwell would say that the shorter list was completely wrong, but that the one extra item of heresy on the second list Dr. Maxwell did admit to teaching, and would get a chuckle that the line did not originate with Dr. Maxwell, but was a quote from the Desire of Ages.

Anyway, while Dr. Maxwell dissagrees with teaching those things that his critics accuse him of teaching, this book I just read, "The Hell Jesus Never Intended" (sorry I can't think of the author's name) is indeed teaching what all these books and articles accused Graham Maxwell of teaching, but which Graham Maxwell denies teaching.

I hope this helps.

Thanks Kevin.

I think Dr. Maxwell is one of the most misunderstood speakers there is. And not because what he says is unclear. Robert Wieland is another one who comes to mind.

I think the main reason these men are understood are they are presenting thoughts out of the ordinary, which challenge conventional thinking. Almost always their actual thoughts are not rejected, since they are not understood, but some fabrication is rejected.

Maxwell suggests asking two questions when trying to understand someone's thoughts:
1) What did the person actually say?
2) What did the person mean when he said what he said?