Thank you for sharing these quotes Mike, but to be honest with you, I do not see your point, where am I supposed to have a problem with any of these quotes? They all fit what I have said. Apparently you don’t think they fit together. Can you tell me what I’m missing?

Now there are points that I give a little bit more explanation to, such as why some suffer longer than others, and since I’ve already explained these, is it fair to take up more computer space to repeat what I already said? Therefore I would again like to invite you to again (?) read both the post that I copied from the writings of Lynn Harper Wood from the 1940s (posted Nov. 19 at 14:34) and my longer essay (Nov 19 at 15:01) and my answering of questions thereafter.

Anyway, first I noticed that you mostly quoted from Early Writings. I take these quotes and see how Mrs. White herself expanded upon them through the years, and harmonize them with quotes such as “The glory of Him who is love will consume the wicked” Her description as to what should have happened to Lucifer at the beginning of the Great Controversy, WHY God is keeping Lucifer alive and What would have happened had God not kept Lucifer alive, and points she brings up in places such as “It is Finished” in the Desire of Ages, and “God made Manifest in Christ” and as you see her view developing you start to see how often she brings up the principle in many places in her writings. Everytime I go through Desire of Ages I keep finding my self surprised on how she presents this view. I also take these writings and include with them Biblical passages such as Deuteronomy 4:24 and 9:3 says that God is a consuming fire. Isaiah 33 says that the righteous will live forever in the eternal fire while the lost are not able to live in the eternal fire. Isaiah 10 says "...under his glory a burning shall be kindled
Like the burning of fire.
The light of Israel will become a fire!
And his Holy One a flame!
And it will burn and devour
His thorns and briers in one day"

God's love is the fire which is currently burning sin out of our lives now and purifying us as gold for his kingdom, or will destroy us with our sins at the end if we persist in holding to our sins and refuse to let it purify us now.

I've read what you posted here and other places regarding the fire, the light, the glory of God, etc., but I guess I'm having a hard time accepting it as truth. I listened to Graham Maxwell for years, and I appreciate the way he emphasizes the love of God, but when he started saying God does not destroy, etc., and after much study, I came to the conclusion that his theory is incomplete.

BTW, where in the Bible is fire actually fire?

While Graham Maxwell does make comments that sounds by themselves like God does not distroy, he has the ballancing statements, which are too often ignored. I will admit that he has gotten into a set way of saying what he has to say, which is why I encourage to look for some of the different shaded of presentation to help get a fuller view.

I started out as a harsh critic of Graham Maxwell. Now the view I presented I had developed over the years 1977- about 80 or 81. About 1986 or 87 I met the "God does not kill view" and at first thought that it might be similar to my view, but very quickly saw that they had taken half the truth and were using it against the other half, and thus turning the beauty of Mrs. White's full message into a lie.

Although I knew about Uncle Arthur and that he had some sons in the Ministry, I did not really know much about them until going to Andrews and knowing C. Mervin. When I first learned about Graham Maxwell I heard that he was teaching the "God does not kill view" and the Moral Influence Theory.

I wrote to one of my major professors at the Seminary for more information on Graham Maxwell's teachings. My professor said that he was not familiar with his teachings at all, but there was one professor at the seminary who had looked into it and he was telling everyone else what Graham teaches and the problems with it. My professor said that all he knew about Graham Maxwell came from what this other professor taught.

I was sort of dissapointed. I never had class with this professor, but I read one of his books and heard him give a sermon. Now after reading his book I asked my professor if this other professor was a heritic. In the sermon there was one illustration that I really liked and had been planing to use, and since it was fairly easy to research it I went to read the story and found the topic but the story was very different. So niether of these gave me a positive impression of that professor. But anyway, I wrote him. He wrote me a short note back saying "Actually I am not at all familiar with Graham Maxwell himself, I've never heard him speak, never heard a tape and never read anything he wrote, but I know that he is a good friend of Jack Provonsha. Now I'm not really famaliar with Provonsha either except that I have read just enough of his book 'You Can Come Home Again' so see that it appears to be just a new twist on the Moral Influence Theory, thus I assume that Graham Maxwell is teaching the moral influence theory as well, and if you buy the book 'The Cross' by John Stott you will be able to know what Maxwell and Provonsha are teaching and what is wrong with it."

I mentioned about my earlier contact with the God does not kill view, I was not familiar with the Moral Influence Theory, so I looked into it, and saw that it did not have the substitutionary sacrificial aspects, and it tended to, as I put it, turn the cross into a coach which is encouraging you to do good works so that God can let you into heaven, insead of us being totally dependent on Jesus and his death to get into heaven.

I use to denounce Graham Maxwell in sermons because of these two points. But I would run into people who denied that Graham Maxwell taught either of these points. That frustrated me so when I moved to California I decided to get it from the horses mouth. I'd sit in his class and spent hours asking him questions after class. While driving I'd listen to his tapes. Sometimes he would say something where I'd say "AH-HA!! Here it is!!!" but I could not use my magic quote too long because he's later say something that would ballance out those statements, and my body would hunch over in dissappointment. And too often I'd be screaming at my tape recorder saying "What are you saying that for? You don't believe that!"

I mentioned the Seminary professor who was critical of what Graham Maxwell is teaching and how when I wrote asking him for information, he flatly told me he was completely unfamiliar with Graham Maxwell himself. Dr. Maxwell told me how he once called that professor on the phone to try to clearify his views. The professor gave Graham a list of things he saw as heresy that Graham was teaching (all dealing with "God does not Kill" and "Moral Inluence") Graham said to him "But I don't teach any of those things" to which the professor replied "Oh yes you do" hung up the phone and refused any phonecalls or attempts by Graham Maxwell to talk to him.

Graham Maxwell also told me that although Jack Provonsha does not hold the Moral Influence Theory, his shading of the topic does include some points in common with the Moral Influence Theory which Maxwell is not comfortable with. Since they have similar theologies, the critics have made a mistake to believe that they are identical, and thus Graham has gotten blaimed for some of Provonsha's ideas that Graham himself is not comfortable with.

(Graham and Provonsha went to PUC together, but did not know each other too well. They graduated and went their sepperate ways. During this time they developed their theologies. When their paths crossed again they were surprised as to how similar their conclusions were, although as mentioned above they were not identical and some of Provonsha's ideas were a bit more Liberal than Graham was comfortable with.)

The last time I spoke to C. Mervin Maxwell he said to me "I keep telling my coligues at the seminary that they do not understand what my brother is saying and that they are misrepresenting his views, but they refuse to listen to me."

While Graham Maxwell was one those who developed the view on his own, there have been others before and after him all very independent from him. Mine, and the views of my professors were all developed very independent from Graham Maxwell. While I have come to love Graham Maxwell and have gone from a critic to a defender, all the different people who have studied this issue all have our own shades, and I want people to look into the different shades and not think that one size fits all. That if I hear a rumor about Graham Maxwell, then I know just what he and Kevin H and Lynn Wood and all the rest are thinking. One size fits all. We are not all one happy family with a great guru who's teachings we all reflect. Rather a loose (some closer than others, and some completely independent) association of people who here and there in different parts of the country and the world, using different methods of study, who over the years, both before and after Graham Maxwell have come to the conclusion that Mrs. White and the Bible teaches this view about hell and have seen Adventistism from this view. Graham Maxwell's version of this has become the most well known, but all of us are not as much interested in what Graham Maxwell is teaching, but what does the Bible and Mrs. White teach, and we have reached similar conclusions about the death of the wicked. Had I never heard of Graham Maxwell I'd still be teaching this.

For example, while Graham's theology accomidates the same great truths that we find in the "Forensic view" but since the Forensic view is based on the other view of hell, Graham does all he can to avoid the common language and sort of trys to slip the truths in here and there so to distance himself from the forensic view. I'm just the opposit, I have no problem using the language of truths that we hold in common with the Forensic view, and I look for other ways to express the differences.

So Mike, it is good that you are familiar with Graham Maxwell's version, but to help ballance things out please check out some of the other versions as well. Also an additional name I can add to the study is Dr. Heppenstall. He actually could not decide which view was right. Held both of them although he knew they were mutually exclusive, but he would teach both views, and thus he would also be a sorce in this study.

I'm going to piggy back on what Kevin said regarding A.G. Maxwell. I started listening to his tapes only in the last year, but to my knowledge none of the views I have presented have come from him, and they are views I have held for many years. The strongest influence to my reaching the conclusions I have has been, I believe, Ellen G. White. In particular, The Desire of Ages and The Great Controversy.

The principle that Kevin shared from C. Mervyn Maxwell that none of his colleagues knew what A. Graham actually believed I have found to occur very often. While rejecting truth, people do not reject the actual truth, but a caricature of it they form in their own mind. This is why I object when I see the views I'm trying to present being misrepresented. It's OK to disagree with a different perspective, but one should understand that perspective before rejecting it, and a test that such a perspective is understood is the ability to present it in such a way that the one presenting the given perspective can say, "Yes, you are presenting my view correctly. That is what I believe."

The idea that the punishment and destruction of sin and sinners is a passive-aggressive act of God just doesn't jive with the obvious reading of God's word in the Bible and the SOP. Does it matter if I choose to interpret the lake of fire literally? I'm not entirely sure if it does or not. It doesn't change my mind about the kingdom and character of God. Whether it is the light of His glory that kills sinners in a lake of fire, or His calling fire down from heaven that kills them - either way, unless I'm missing something really big here, God is directly responsible for eliminating sin and sinners in the lake of fire. It's just that reading the Bible and the SOP literally requires a whole lot less explaining.

Not at all Mike, you are not missing anything, except for thinking that we are...

Also, God is not Passive-Agressive.

Was God passive when Jesus was born? No I think he was very active.

Did Mary give birth to twins, one who's birth brought joy to the Magi and another who brought grief to Herod, or was it one child who's simple act of being born brought joy to some and horror to others?

Was God passive in the Resurection? Well... [I'm trying to think of a way of having God do two sepperat things here, as I mentioned the twins above, but it's not working, so I'll just stick to the facts] God was VERY active in the resurection, and that act brought joy to Mary and the disciples, but what did the resurection do to Pilate and the hight priests? Did God have to do two different acts to these two groups of people, or was it one act with two results? And again, how passive was God in the resurection? God will be just as active at the end. The actvity will be heaven and eternal life to some while that very same act will be hell and eternal death to others.

So you are on the right track. You just need to realize that we are on that same track.

Kevin, I'm pretty sure we are not on the same track. But thank you for trying to be a peace maker. I do not believe the lake of fire separates saints and sinners, or that their individual reactions determines their eternal reward. I believe God separated them in the first resurrection. Only sin and sinners are impacted in the lake of fire. Whether or not this fire is literal or merely the glory of God's countenance is probably not as important as the results itself. There is a problem, I believe, when we spiritualize the word of God when it was intended to be taken literally. But perhaps we should discuss that some other time and place.

I think an important question to consider is, what does our view of the destruction of the wicked tell us about God's character? Is sin something which God is trying to save us from because it will destroy us? Or is sin something for which God will punish us for if we don't do what He says? Or is there some third alternative?

All of the above. The third alternative is a combination of the first two. What does this tell us about the kingdom and character of God? He is in control. He is merciful and just. He will not tolerate sin.

Job
36:11 If they obey and serve [him], they shall spend their days in prosperity, and their years in pleasures.
36:12 But if they obey not, they shall perish by the sword, and they shall die without knowledge.

Exodus
34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].