tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post3085656649188075835..comments2024-01-30T03:40:00.558-08:00Comments on Adventist Media Response and Conversation: Graham Maxwell's Great Controversy viewRon Corsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02160607058464028162noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-71952297901665117862010-09-18T17:01:47.990-07:002010-09-18T17:01:47.990-07:00Did you read the article? I quote from him. Nobody...Did you read the article? I quote from him. Nobody ever said EGW was only substitutionary. In fact practically everyone who teaches the substitutionary view aka penal theory also incorporates the moral influence theory with their penal view. They simply don't think the moral influence theory is enough because God has to kill somebody because the law was broken. Thus Jesus paid the penalty and received the wrath of God.<br /><br />I really don't like it when people say I have a superficial knowledge when I actually know the subject better then they do.Ron Corsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02160607058464028162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-45680979337084666752010-09-18T14:41:28.504-07:002010-09-18T14:41:28.504-07:00Seems like your understanding of/exposure to Maxwe...Seems like your understanding of/exposure to Maxwell may be superficial, but I may be wrong. Just that he addresses your comments in his work. For example, he specifically looks at EGW's views and shows they weren't just substitutionary. And as for being dependent on EGW, he specifically champions developing a picture of God from the Bible--hence his numerous trips through the Bible with small groups as can be heard in God in All 66 online. It would be a significant time commitment, but I suggest you read the Bible and go through the series with him before passing judgment on what he supposedly believes/teaches or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-56198346677441082462010-08-07T07:17:06.421-07:002010-08-07T07:17:06.421-07:00I can go either way on the devil as literal or as ...I can go either way on the devil as literal or as the name satan implies anyone working against God. (an adversary)<br /><br />I don't believe there was a literal war in heaven. the book of Revelation is not the place to look for anything to take literally.<br /><br />As for thinking it is all about us, that is very clearly the Biblical view and just as naturally our own human view. Thus that is the Bible's focus as well as the writers of the Bible focus. Though as Paul says about not fighting flesh and blood the principalities and powers in high places indicates that we are dealing with the ideas and attitudes of human beings and not just some kind of physical war. Though I am sure many people cling to that verse to show that we are really fighting demons...thus every sin is from the devil in their minds, rather then the more logical explanation that the book of James gives about sin coming from our own thoughts until it becomes an action.Ron Corsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02160607058464028162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10270506.post-78593226765359584942010-08-06T21:41:57.219-07:002010-08-06T21:41:57.219-07:00Maxwell takes literally that there is a devil who ...Maxwell takes literally that there is a devil who is God’s enemy. There was a real war in heaven fought by real angels over real issues involving them. When we become myopic thinking this situation is all about us then we will be confused about what is really going on. Thus the Wider View.<br />Is it fair to say you don’t believe in a literal devil or a literal war in heaven?<br />Rather this is figurative language describing the destructive thinking of people and its consequences?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com