Timeout: Cosmic Conflict vs. Historicism

“The Maxwell Model” destroys the Gospel and makes our very existence merely instrumental to the ends of “saving God’s reputation.”

Don’t believe me?


Graham Maxwell interviewed by Jonathan Gallagher (1991)

Now we know there is a whole vast universe of intelligent beings, all involved in what went wrong,
sinless angels included.

The book of Revelation was given to help us see that LARGER VIEW.

And what went wrong in the universe went wrong before we humans ever came into existence, and God proposed to set that right.

We know that he CREATED this world to provide the setting within which he would set things right.

So we are a spectacle to the whole universe, as here on this world God did the things that set the universe right again—WHETHER WE HUMANS ARE SAVED OR NOT.

So Christ’s death was for our benefit certainly, but also for the benefit of the angels and the unfallen worlds?


What can I possibly say to someone who doesn’t see a problem there?

This is far from benign, and morally sets us back centuries, in my opinion.


I know no such thing.

That is made up out of whole cloth.

Clearly, Adventists have no sense of that Categorical Imperative that enjoins us not to use human beings instrumentally; that human beings are ends in themselves.

And wasn’t this clearly demonstrated when LLU fed people perchlorate in service to the military industrial complex? Who signed off on that abomination?

Purportedly, God Himself uses human beings to instrumental ends to “save His reputation,” so what isn’t allowed, in this environment?

1 Like

Not familiar with? Background?

“Inherently unethical”
“It would bring a tear to Dr. Josef Mengele’s eye.”

The Ethical Discussion is far overdue, in my opinion.

Innocent Blood!

For the record: “Saving God’s Reputation” show how Jesus saves God’s shattered reputation. It is not as though the author presumes to give God a helping hand.


Thank you, Sigve.

For the record, this is not personal, in the least.

I believe in universal reconciliation, and am ending up in the general vicinity of where you and Maxwell are, I imagine.

I believe Graham Maxwell tried to be a bridge to a more benign view of God, but inadvertently ended up shooting himself in the foot, lovely man that he was considered, and I will take people’s word for that.

Last Generation Theology (LGT) is disdained on this forum, but Graham Maxwell’s model has us saving God’s reputation as God’s purpose in creating this world, whether humans are saved or not.

To my mind, that is much more toxic and damaging than the perfectionism of conservative SDAs, which I used to embrace.

And it’s just another iteration of LGT.

And it’s a made-up story besides.

BTW, I’m not against LGT, by any means.

Now you can make an erudite distinction between faith in Jesus and faith of Jesus that I don’t have the intellectual equipment to argue with.

But surely you are not saying that human beings have no part in “saving God’s reputation”. via their appropriation of the faith OF Jesus.

Or…maybe you ARE saying that…correct me.

But we’re still here, so…


Are you referring to Universalism, in which God saves everyone in the end?

This is fascinating that Maxwell’s “are we safe to save” and protecting God’s reputation is connected to Last Generation Theology of perfectionism. I have always thought that both these approaches de-emphasize the role of the cross, or as Tom Zwemer calls it, “The Christ Event” with their focus moving off a personal saviour, His love for humans and emphasizing proving we are good enough, perfect enough, righteousness to “earn” a place in the next Heavenly life.

Thank you for making that connection more direct.

You are right. The Maxwell theory is toxic. But so is focusing on being “good enough.” They are both toxic.

Jesus is enough. His death for us, that He would have died for just one, is love beyond measure.


If we were to go cherry picking we might insert, right about here:

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. … So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.


I wish to also say that I have no personal animus regarding Sigve, Maxwell vs. Herb Douglass (LGT, Andreason et.al ) on the varying sides of the SDA discussion. I will continue to point out, I suggest, both these “major views” of today minimize or abandon the “Classical Protestant” view of JBF “alone.” Somewhat ironic or disingenuous for a message that was suppose to be a continuation of the Protestant Reformation.
Do as one pleases but recognize what you are doing and why you are doing it.
As to “faith of Christ” or “faith in Christ” it is whether context prefers the subjective Genitive of the first or objective Genitive of the later. Both of the translations are acceptable and context can cause the different views. I would suggest “faith in Christ” is best where the genetive causes focus on the noun Christ.
If it were “faith of Jesus” that is chosen then I would suggest one consider Christ’s perfect faith/ faithfulness in fulfilling the Covenant promises that allows His vicarious atonement. Likewise the covenant contains the blessings and curses in it. I would suggest the covenant curses remain for those not receiving the blessings in Christ. The curses were a sure outcome also for disobedience.
Christ portrayed in Rev.19 coming forth is a time of both deliverance to blessings and delivering curses to unbelief.
Regards to Sigve, Cassie, Sirge & Harpa who have conversed.


Thanks, Pat. As I said to Sigve, I lack the intellectual equipment to have a clue what you guys are talking about, which means I’m possibly/probably wrong.

Again, I don’t know, Pat.

But if that’s true, and it may well be true, then Adventists have totally missed the point that Ellen White made when she said:

“Righteousness by faith is the Third Angel’s Message in verity.”

(I recently posted that, “We don’t understand that yet.” Just my opinion.)

Adventists can’t seem to get their soteriology and their eschatology on the same page, I’ve often said.

I appreciate your input, Pat.


I am wholeheartedly with you, Sirje.

Not in the usual sense, but in a specifically Adventist sense, which involves The Great Antitypical Day of Atonement.

This is not explainable, and I have no hope of being persuasive.

We don’t have to live as mice in someone else’s maze. We can use our sanctified imaginations.

Maxwell was right: God is friendly.

Thanks for asking. :hugs:


AND…this Drama of the Ages is going somewhere, somewhere unimaginably good.

I believe that, but I can’t prove it.

Best regards to all here, especially Sigve, who I hope isn’t feeling terribly besieged. :frowning:


As for me, I’m sweating bullets. Who do I think I am?

If someone called me a miserable excuse for a human being, I’d have to say that rose to the level of a high complement.

Going to give it a rest.

Love and prayers, Adventist friends. :heart:


The classical Protestant view of JBF alone means “reckon/declare” righteous.
Other views, “which are many” consider RBF to be "make righteous "
Their focus is more on our faith and inward renewal that justifies…us and in some instances God.

1 Like

She seems to appear, or not, as needed…:roll_eyes:

I listened to Graham Maxwell back in the mid 90’s because a friend was very taken with his talks. Personally, I didn’t gravitate toward him at all. In fact, I was quite unattracted to his message and style. As you said, he would quote parts of EGW, but leave off the rest of it. It just seemed like a bunch of EGW “proof-texting”, so to speak, in the same way that Scripture is treated.
Agreed. EGW has so many conflicting statements, visions, etc. (along with a lot that doesn’t agree with Scripture), that this should make the point that authoritative, extra-biblical sources, are a very, very bad idea.


First, I want to say how appreciative I am for this series, and for this installment, in particular. I do believe that foregrounding the broad picture of the Cosmic Conflict over a concern for any particular historical correspondence, whether Roman or American, is the proper way to interpret Revelation’s temporal perspective.

But I do want to add one critique. Tonstad speaks more than once about a “post-Holocaust world” and about visiting Holocaust sites. Certainly, the massacre of six million innocent Jews raised serious theological questions and became a dividing line, of sorts, in theological thinking. However, I think it is all too easy for white theologians to overlook other similar human tragedies, some perhaps closer to home. In America, how can we point to the exterminations of Jews carried out by Nazi Germany while overlooking our own genocide of Native Americans and the enslavement and lynching of African Americans? These were holocausts, as well, yet white theologians have seldom, if ever, wrestled with living in a “post-lynching” world. Perhaps, alongside Auschwitz and Treblinka we ought to place Montgomery, Alabama, and the new National Memorial for Peace and Justice. According to their website, “more than 4400 African American men, women, and children were hanged, burned alive, shot, drowned, and beaten to death by white mobs between 1877 and 1950. Millions more fled the South as refugees from racial terrorism, profoundly impacting the entire nation. Until now, there has been no national memorial acknowledging the victims of racial terror lynchings.” Can the African American be hopeful in a post-lynching, mass incarceration world because of “the cosmic narratives of Revelation?” I think so. But I also think it is time to acknowledge those realities, as well, in our theological work.


Thank-you for bringing up this point…and as sad as the slavery issue has been in the US, there has been little addressing the ethics and morality of the displacement, mistreatment and atrocities, upon the Native Americans by the “God-fearing”.

1 Like

I have listened to Graham Maxwell since I was a boy. I have never heard something so beautiful and expanding of one’s curiosity. I learned to identify what I know, what I don’t know and what I need to know. I felt fear go down and love go up. It does no good to stand up to defend a dead man I guess. But just for the record those of us who have believe this view find it quite satisfying I will illustrate.

I went into a Sunday Church to use the rest room, as that was the only building open then. Immediately the pastor was on to me, trying to convince me that it was ok to eat meat etc. And because I believed the larger view, for the first time in my life I felt no compunction to turn a moment of possible relationship into a theological fight. Love swept over me and I turned the conversation to the wonder of Christ. We parted in peace. I thanked God. If I held my old beliefs I don’t see peace would have been in this case. What I believed previously would not have helped me in that situation.

The other day I discovered a good acquaintance was muslim. I kid you not, my love for them went up, my desire to convert them by christian trickery was not there. The more I understand the large view, the more I just want to love people. This is the impact it has had on me. Sure the theology may be shaky, but I don’t really judge theologies that way, I just check if my love container is filling up or if the fear box is filling up. I check if I am able to listen and understand and weigh evidence as best as I can or if I am becoming afraid to weigh evidence.

I had a conversation with someone who does not believe in God, a scientist, he asked me what I thought about evolution and the evidence that supports it. Because I believe in the goodness of God, I was able to answer honestly and I am quite sure he was able to respect my answer and yet not feel pressured or insulted or ridiculed. He did not make me feel the same way either. The larger view as I understand it, is not about having a tightly neat theology, its just about having the clearest view of Jesus possible and seeking an even clearer one, so we are free to change lots of things in order to see Jesus Clearly, like Zacheaus we might need to climb a tree and afterwards we might need to come down from the tree, we have to do and believe whatever helps us see Jesus better. this is what the larger view is all about in my opinion. at least thats what I use it for.

As I have recently learned, we can never bend the truth, we can only bend our perception of truth. The more we bend ourselves, one day we will break ourselves.

The way I read my bible, the way I study history, EGW, the way I engage in conversation and the way I react when someone opens up to me about their failing and doubts. The way I treat myself when I fail, all these things are practical ways that I have seen changes happen in my life and in the lives of others who have believed the message. This is what I understand the message to be in brief.

God is love. People haven’t always believed this but by and by everyone will see it. and Love will cover the world. So we pray day and night Thy kingdom come.


I thought you might be interested in knowing that there have been some Christians who have recognized the mistreatment of Black and Native Americans and have made intercessory prayer for forgiveness. Here is an example:


1 Like

Someone said “If wishes and but’s were raisins and nuts we’d all have a bowl of granola.”

Similarly, while the notion that god could somehow magically save two people who share the same beliefs, to say nothing of a group of like minded people en masse, is a believable idea, it is nothing more than that.

Moreover, no belief—despite the certainty with it is held nor the frequency with which it is repeated—can prove that it must be the case just as there is no amount of hope or faith in a wish that can make that wish a prophecy.

To my mind Mark Twain’s view that each man must go to his own heaven is just as believable and much more appealing.

For example, Jerry Fallwell would think he had died and gone to hell if the “god” of his heaven invited in a group of homosexuals.

Thanks for your reply.

I’m glad that Maxwell was of value to you and your world view. He just wasn’t that for me.

I too, no longer have the need to get into heated debates, or have the “need to be right”. That’s not important to me anymore, so I totally get what you are saying. I enjoy a discussion, to be sure. But, I don’t take anything personally, and I’m less and less inclined to feel that I have to convince anyone of anything.


Sophistry of sophistry, all is sophistry. This article does not have arguments, it simply eloquently relates a gut feeling that is convenient to the majority of this magazine’s listeners.Even the title begs the question, by asserting without evidence that the two perspectives are in contradiction. It is useful because it foreshadows all of this article’s fallacies make.

The author saying may not be safe saying this is also silly. Unless he was literally inside David Koresh’s building at the time of publication, it’s a ridiculous plea to suggest a false courage. I do not know of any Adventist who has been murdered or maimed for his views by another Adventist. But that’s just an argument from ignorance that may be wrong. Hand-wringing over “-isms” is another non-argument largely based off the philosopher John Hughes’ work “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”. It’s one of the silly arguments that people use to say Adventists are not Christians- ChristianITY vs AdventISM. It’s just a dumb word thing. You can add an “-ism” to anything because it doesn’t mean anything itself. Heck, I could call the author’s view “contextlesscosmicconflict-ism” or something more catchy. Would it be an argument? No, not at all.

“The biblical mainstay of “historicism” is the Book of Daniel. Daniel presents historical prophecy (“history” without the need to call it “historicism”).
Revelation is influenced by Daniel, but it is more than a Second Daniel”

Once again begging the question. He is basing his argument on the premise that only Daniel can have a historical (I’ll try to avoid the unspeakable suffix) interpretation, and arrive at that same conclusion. Daniel says some limited things without the context of revelation, because of present truth. Revelation doesn’t mean very much without Daniel, which was much older. The basic premise that the New Testament is essentially deeper and more spirtual than the Old Testament makes the author a dispensationalist (or, believer of dispensations I’d better say). There’s a lot of nice churches he can go to on Sunday where the folks will agree with him.

" Historicist readings are event-centered, time-centered, and history -centered. “Cosmic conflict” readings are value -centered and God -centered"

Timeless values and issues regarding the character of God can play out in the world and in time. At this point, it’s clear that the author has completely rejected Ellen White’s writings, given that such a position cannot be held if he read and believed her most famous book.

I read the rest and it wasn’t very good either. Baseless attacks on fundamental beliefs that require digging up the whole library to categorically refute are a bit much for your average dumb college kid like myself (who would still rather not do schoolwork even after the Sabbath). But when we see fallicies, proof that the author is not acting in good faith, and a heavy reliance on pathos and wordplay, we can draw a fairly clear conclusion that the author is wrong and contributes little.