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
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
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 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.