Category Archives: Theological

How God Wins Us Back to Trust

Conversations About God 2:5

Millions of angels and men have broken faith with God. They have shown that they cannot be trusted. But has this changed our God? Can God still be trusted? Specifically, can God be trusted to even want us to come back? Is God still the kind of God who can be trusted to pay any price to win us back? That is the question that stirred the apostle Paul when he wrote Romans 3:3-4: “What if some of them did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all” (NIV)! Some versions say, “By no means” (ESV, NRSV). “God forbid” (KJV). “May it never be” (NASB). And we have the whole biblical record of all God has done to set right what has gone wrong.

God even sent His Son to deal with sin. Look at Romans 8:3: “What the Law could not do, because human nature was weak, God did. He condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like our sinful nature, to do away with sin (GNB).” What the Law could not do, God did by sending his own Son to do away with sin. Or as the Jerusalem Bible puts the same sentence (Rom 8:3): “God dealt with sin by sending his own Son.”

What does it mean to deal with sin? It depends on what sin is. If sin is distrust and its consequences, forgiveness alone will not heal the damage done. Forgiveness does not do away with sin. For there to be lasting peace in God’s universe, trust must somehow be restored. Questions must be answered. Satan’s accusations must be met. God must be seen to be righteous, and infinitely worthy of our trust. And so Christ came to set things right. That is why He died; a subject we’ll spend a whole chapter considering (Chapter 8).

Look at Paul’s explanation in Romans 5:1: “Now that we have been put right with God through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (GNB). Notice the phrase “put right” or “set right.” That’s based on the Greek verb that’s usually translated “justified” or “being justified.” (Greek: dikaioô) I love how the Good News Bible translates it, “put right.” We’ll go into this more deeply in a later chapter.

There are at least three ways of looking at what went wrong in God’s universe as a basis for our continuing discussion. And the crucial point is that God looks different in each of these three ways. The first of these views is very widely held beyond the bounds of Christianity. The statement of the problem goes something like this: Because we have broken God’s rules, we have offended Him. He is very angry with us. The crucial question then becomes: What can human beings do to appease God’s anger so that He can find it in His heart not to destroy us, but rather forgive us and bless us once again?

There is another view that’s widely held, sometimes within the bounds of Christianity. The statement of the problem goes something like this: We have broken God’s rules, and thus we are in serious legal trouble. Law and justice demand that God should destroy us, or (in some versions of this view) even torture us for eternity. The crucial question then becomes: Can anything be done to make it legally possible for God to forgive us, and not destroy us, while still being just in His own eyes and in the eyes of the onlooking universe?

Then there’s a third view that is not so widely held on this planet, but I believe it is the most widely held view throughout the universe. In this view the statement of the problem goes something like this: We have sinned. We have allowed ourselves to be deceived by Satan’s lies. And so we have turned away from the true God to many substitutes. And the results have been disastrous. Left alone we all would die. The crucial question then becomes: Is there any way that Satan’s lies can be corrected? Is there any way that the truth about God and His government can be made crystal clear? Is there any way that unquestionable evidence can be provided, that God is not the kind of person His enemies have made Him out to be? Can some of us rebels be won back to trust, and so be saved and healed?

Could I ask you which one of these three views you prefer? Which one of these gods do you prefer? Which one would you rather live with for eternity? Or does it really make any difference?

The Consequences of Mistrust

Sin changes us, producing fear and mistrust of God. The results of centuries of mistrust are catalogued in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Let’s look first at Romans 3. What makes this quotation from Romans so significant is that it’s made up of six Old Testament passages; one from Isaiah, and five from the Psalms. This is a summary of the Old Testament picture of the consequences of mistrust (Romans 3:10-18): As the Scriptures say: “There is no one who is righteous, no one who is wise or who worships God. All have turned away from God; they have all gone wrong; no one does what is right, not even one. Their words are full of deadly deceit; wicked lies roll off their tongues, and dangerous threats, like snake’s poison, from their lips; their speech is filled with bitter curses. They are quick to hurt and kill; they leave ruin and destruction wherever they go. They have not known the path of peace, nor have they learned reverence for God (GNB).”

Paul has a lot more to say about the consequences of mistrust in Romans 1. There (Rom 1:18-20) Paul points out that there is no excuse to be ignorant about God. God has revealed Himself in creation and in human experience. So lack of knowledge is actually rooted in human rebellion. Notice some of the consequences (Romans 1:21-23): They know God, but they do not give him the honor that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. They say they are wise, but they are fools; instead of worshipping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles (GNB).

We know from ancient records that the Egyptians worshipped crocodiles and even beetles. Think what that would do to a person. We’ll look more closely at that in a later chapter. But Hosea says that it is a law that we become like the object of our worship: “When Israel came to Baal-Peor, they began to worship Baal and soon became as disgusting as the god they loved” (based on Hosea 9:10). That’s the devastating consequence of worshipping a false picture of God. Those who worship the Father through the revelation we have in Jesus become more like Him. Those who follow Satan become like him.

How God has tried to keep in touch, but how unwilling we have been to listen! Because people have refused to keep in mind the true knowledge about God (Rom 1:18-23), Paul goes on to say (Rom 1:25, GNB): “They exchange the truth about God for a lie.” And you know who the Father of lies is. Paul then outlines the devastating consequences of this exchange (Rom 1:28-32):

(God) has given them over to corrupted minds, so that they do the things that they should not do. They are filled with all kinds of wickedness, evil, greed, and vice; they are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, deceit, and malice. They gossip and speak evil of one another; they are hateful to God, insolent, proud, and boastful; they think of more ways to do evil; they disobey their parents; they have no conscience; they do not keep their promises, and they show no kindness or pity for others. They know that God’s law says that people who live in this way deserve death. Yet, not only do they continue to do these very things, but they even approve of others who do them (GNB).

Notice how the Bible says (to our comfort) there will be no gossips in eternity! The saved will be those who can be trusted with the memory of other people’s sins and still treat them with dignity and respect. Paul also mentions people who break their promises, a translation of the Greek word for “faithless” (ESV, NIV) or “untrustworthy” (NASB). These are all consequences of a breakdown of trust in God’s human family.

The stubbornness and unwillingness to listen that Paul features in Romans 1 is echoed in Hosea 4:16, 17: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer. How can the Lord feed them now like lambs in a broad meadow? Ephraim is wedded to idolatry, let him alone” (Phillips). When people don’t love, trust, and admire God, “their spirit is steeped in unfaithfulness and they know nothing of the Lord” (Hosea 5:4, Phillips). Notice also the following selections from Hosea 4:1 and 5:6, 12: “There is no honesty nor compassion nor knowledge of God . . . My people! Asking advice from a piece of wood and consulting a staff for instructions” (Phillips)!

This raises a significant point, how could it be said that Israel does not know God (see also Jer 5:4; 9:3)? Who else knew God so well? Look at all the Old Testament prophets and their marvelous pictures of God. But the way Israel knew God in those days was not knowing God in the special, biblical sense. That is, to know God as a friend– to even know God intimately as a husband and a wife know each other. The Bible says, “Adam knew Eve,” his wife (Gen 4:1). And as a result, they didn’t just learn each other’s names. They had a baby.

Elsewhere, God says of Israel, “Thee only have I known” (Amos 3:2). He knew all the other nations. But He knew Israel in a special way. Something similar happens at the last judgment. When disappointed saints find that they are not acceptable in the kingdom, they plead “Lord, Lord. Open unto us.” He says, “Go away. I never knew you” (see Matthew 7:21-23). He knew the hairs on their head (Matt 10:30; Luke 12:7), but He did not know them as friends. And friendship is the very essence of the relationship God wishes to have with His people. If Israel had really known God, they would have been better friends. They would have been jealous for His reputation. And they would have been better people themselves, like the prophets in the Old Testament who wrote so well of God.

When we believe Satan’s lies, we don’t trust God and allow Him to heal us. And the ultimate result of that can be found in Romans 6:23: “Sin pays its servants: the wage is death” (Phillips). Or in the Good News Bible: “For sin pays its wage – death” (GNB). You see, as human beings we cannot make it on our own. Not until God breathed into man the breath of life, did man begin to live (Gen 2:7). We are not gods; we’re just created beings. God hopes we won’t find that too humiliating. He won’t rub it in. He even treats us as gods in the Psalms (82:6). He even speaks of us as brothers of His Son (Matt 25:40; Mark 3:34; John 20:17). But we are still created beings. It makes good sense, therefore, to listen very closely to the One who made us. To pretend to be God was Satan’s insane idea. And look what it’s done for him.

Sin as a Breach of Trust in the Story of Moses

This blog continues chapter two of the book in process Conversations About God. It originated as a series of lectures of Graham Maxwell in 1984.

Conversations About God 2:3

I know of no greater illustration of how sin is a violation of trust than the one involving the great saint Moses. When the people were complaining about the lack of water, they came to Moses and grumbled. They even said they wished they had died in the wilderness. “ Why did you bring us here from Egypt? We have no water” (based on Numbers 20:5). They behaved so badly that Moses ran to God and prayed, “God, what shall I do?” And God said, “Give them water. Take your rod and go to the rock and speak this time. Don’t hit it, don’t make a scene, don’t be angry with the people or condemn them. Just speak to the rock, and they’ll have all the water they want” (based on Numbers 20:7-8).

Instead of following God’s instructions, Moses went back to the rock, struck it smartly (Num 20:11) and said, “You ungrateful rebels! Must we bring forth water from this rock” (Num 20:10)? According to Numbers 20:12 (NIV) God responded: “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.”

Now on the surface, doesn’t that seem a bit arbitrary and severe? All the old man did was to get irritated and impatient. He disobeyed God by hitting the rock with his rod. Was that enough to keep him out of the Promised Land? For forty years he had led the people. And think what he had put up with all those years. But God says, “Because of what you did at the rock you may not take this people in.” Does that seem severe, for God to treat His old friend like this? How could what Moses did be serious enough to call for such a terrible consequence and penalty?

Understandably, Moses begged God, “Please. Please may I take the people in?” And finally God said, “Speak to Me no more on this matter.” Now how could it be that serious? Or is the answer in the text that we read? It doesn’t say in Numbers 20:12, “Because you disobeyed Me, you cannot take the people in.” It actually says, “Because you did not trust in Me enough to honor Me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you may not bring the people in.” Why?
Moses was one of the best friends God ever had. God talked to him face to face, even more directly than the visions and dreams He gave to the prophets. He said, “I talk to Moses face to face as a man speaks to his friends (see Exodus 33:11).” So the people knew Moses had a special relationship with God. They revered him—at least when they were behaving. They had seen him go up on Mt. Sinai and come down carrying the Ten Commandments. If your pastor came down a mountain carrying the Ten Commandments with his face shining so brightly that you couldn’t look at him, wouldn’t he have increased influence in your congregation?

Moses had enormous influence with the people of Israel. That’s what made his behavior at the rock so serious. He said, “Must we bring forth water from this rock” (Num 20:10)? Moses implied with the “we” that he was speaking and acting in God’s behalf (Num 20:10-11). Moses had pictured God as angry when He was not. God had wished by His kindness to lead some of those Israelites to repentance (Num 20:7-8, see also Romans 2:4). But by his behavior, Moses deprived God of that opportunity. Standing as they were on the verge of going into Canaan to meet those well-armed tribes there, they needed to trust God very closely. And God purposed to win them over to trust, in spite of all their complaining and grumbling. He was not going to condemn them or criticize them; just give them abundant water in one of the driest of deserts. “Moses,” He said, “don’t even strike the rock.” But Moses pictured God as angry.

What a contrast to the way Moses had behaved earlier when God said, “I’m tired of these people. Step aside. Let Me destroy them and I’ll make a great nation out of you (see Exodus 32:10).” At that time Moses responded, “God, you couldn’t do that. Think what it would do to your reputation. What would the Egyptians think? They would assume that you couldn’t take your people to the Promised Land (see Exodus 32:11-13)!” And God said, “I love that, Moses. Who knows Me as well as you do? You really are My friend” (see Exodus 33:9-11). But later on, under pressure, Moses let God down. He misrepresented God as vengeful, unforgiving, and severe. And that was precisely Satan’s sin in the beginning, the sin that is the most devastating of all.

God has honored His friend Moses ever since. He even personally buried him (Deut 34:6), resurrected him (Jude 9), and later sent him down to comfort His Son on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3-4 and parallels in Mark and Luke). But God had to go on record before the eyes of the onlooking universe regarding the terrible seriousness of Moses’ sin. It wasn’t just about disobedience, or that by smiting the rock he had “spoiled a symbol.” He had certainly done both. But more than that, Moses had broken faith with God. The most destructive thing a person can ever do is to be a person of influence and misrepresent the truth about God. Moses hadn’t shown himself to be God’s trusted, trusting friend. And that’s the essence of sin.

How many of us have committed the same sin in words or actions? How many of us have hurt our own children and others who trust us to tell the truth about our God? Have you ever apologized to God for putting Him in a bad light or leaving the impression that He’s not the kind of person we know Him to be? Moses repented and became a better friend of God than ever before. But so many people have continued to mistrust.

What Sin Is All About

Conversations About God 2:2

A crisis of distrust developed in God’s universal family. As we reviewed earlier, our heavenly Father has been accused of being unworthy of our trust. Specifically, He has been accused of being arbitrary, exacting, vengeful, unforgiving, and severe. And thus sin entered our universe for the first time. For the Bible, sin is much more than a mere breaking of the rules, serious as that might be. In its essence, sin is a violation of mutual trust. It is a breakdown of trust and trustworthiness, a stubborn unwillingness to listen to the One who is so eager to help us in our predicament.

Doesn’t the Bible specifically state, however, that sin is breaking the rules? How about the key text we’ve learned from childhood up, “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4, KJV)? Actually, that’s a rather free translation. The Greek word that John used is anomia, and it means, literally, lawlessness. “Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness; sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4, Williams). In other words, sin is described as a state of mind, an attitude. And anyone in that state of mind is a continuing threat to the peace and security of the universal family. Sin will not have been truly dealt with until our lawlessness has either been changed or eliminated. Sin begins with a lawless, rebellious state of mind.

The hazard of regarding sin primarily as breaking the rules is that such a mindset tends to encourage an impersonal, even fearful relationship with God. If we regard sin as primarily a breaking of the rules, God’s commandments may be misunderstood as arbitrary regulations designed to show His authority and test our willingness to obey. If we obey, we’re rewarded. If we disobey, we’re destroyed. Do you want to live under those circumstances?

Since we all have sinned, should we be fearfully awaiting the execution of the sentence? Or have we been spared because God found some legal way to give us yet another chance? And if we turn down that second chance, will He punish us with even greater severity for our ingratitude? Would such an understanding help produce the peace and the freedom from fear that God desires so much in His universal family?

Actually though, if rightly understood, there is a sense in which one can say that sin is a breaking of the rules. Let’s look again God’s commandments, particularly the Decalogue. All those Ten Commandments ultimately require is that we love God and we love each other (Matt 22:36-40). And if we really did that we would have peace and freedom. In fact, in the tenth of the Ten Commandments it says that we should not even want to sin. If we lived in that state of mind, not even wanting to do anything unloving, we would have freedom to be sure, and all kinds of peace and good will.

But can love actually be commanded? Or produced by force or by fear? To put it vividly, has God said to us children, “You either love Me, and love each other, or I’ll have to kill you. Do I make Myself clear?” Have you husbands ever tried that on your wives and children? Did it work? Imagine your wives and children trembling in front of you and saying in unison, “Oh, yes, daddy. We love you very much.” Would you be pleased? Would you be satisfied? If so, then you’re a brute. And the God some of us worship would never settle for that.

Having said that, we all must admit that the Bible is full of references to law, discipline, punishment and rewards, even final fiery destruction. And since our purpose in this series is always to look at the Bible as a whole, not just “here a little and there a little,” we must look at all these other passages seriously. In fact, several chapters of this book will be devoted to God’s wide use of law and why Jesus indeed had to die. And we will talk about how, in reality, God’s law is no threat to our freedom! To understand that is really the truth that sets us free.

Going back to the beginning, sin entered our universe when angels ceased to trust. As a consequence, they themselves became untrustworthy. James 4:17 offers a familiar definition: “Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin (RSV).” It is rebellious to act that way. It is lawless to act that way. Anyone who behaves like that is certainly not trustworthy to have around in a free universe.

Look at Romans 14:23 in several, different versions: “Any action that is not based on faith is a sin.” (Moffat) “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (RSV).” “When we act apart from our faith we sin (Phillips).” In a text from the book of Ezra (10:2), the Jews who returned from Babylonian captivity are confessing that they have done several things that they should not have done. But they describe their misbehaviors in these words: “We have broken faith with our God (RSV).” “We have been unfaithful to our God (NIV).” These texts underline that the essence of sin is a breach of faith; it’s a breakdown of trust and trustworthiness.

Chapter 2: “What Went Wrong in God’s Universe”

This blog begins chapter two of the book in process Conversations About God. It originated as a series of lectures of Graham Maxwell in 1984. After each lecture Maxwell took written questions from the audience mediated through the pastor of the Loma Linda University Church at the time, Lou Venden. This marvelous series has never been put into book form, so I am attempting to do so and sharing the results in progress here with permission from the Maxwell family. The words that followed are Maxwell’s oral presentation, edited by me.

In the previous chapter we summarized the war that broke out in Heaven, as described in Revelation 12. This conflict within God’s family began right in His very presence, in the mind of God’s most honored and trusted angel. This raised the question, What really went wrong in God’s universe? This question is important because understanding what went wrong helps us to understand the methods God is using to put right the things that have gone wrong. We often call these methods “The Plan of Salvation.” As we noted in the last chapter, we’re accustomed to thinking of the plan of salvation as God’s gracious provision to save you, me, and other sinners on this planet. But in the larger view of the great controversy, the plan of salvation is God’s way of setting right what went wrong in the whole universe, and setting it right in such a way that it will never go wrong again.

What really did go wrong? To begin with, it helps to consider what made things go so right before the war in heaven began. Before the war there was peace. There was peace because all the members of God’s vast family trusted each other. They trusted their heavenly Father. And He in turn could safely trust in them. Where you have that kind of mutual trust and trustworthiness, there is perfect peace, perfect freedom, and perfect security.

Questions and Answers (1:5)

Lou Venden: Human beings have a tendency to focus on our own salvation. You have referred to how our salvation needs to be seen in the larger perspective. What I’m wondering is, how does this perspective affect Christian belief in general? Does it make a difference?

Graham Maxwell: I don’t think it minimizes our Christian beliefs in any way, it rather makes them more significant. As I mentioned earlier, the gospel takes on a much broader meaning in the larger view. But that’s not all. Some of us regard the Sabbath as a privilege to observe and a great blessing. A typical approach to the Sabbath is preoccupied with what God has done for our own salvation and what God has done for this planet. But if you limit your understanding to this planet, then the Sabbath was given before sin. And as such it is merely a test of our obedience, to show God’s authority and test our willingness to obey.

In the larger view, however, the Sabbath was given to man after sin entered the universe. Then it’s no longer an arbitrary test of obedience. It’s a great gift that God gave to remind us of all the things the Bible associates with the Sabbath. Things like the freedom and the perfection of Eden, and the freedom that He gave to all of His creatures. God’s rescue of His people in the Exodus. And then the events of crucifixion week. The seventh-day Sabbath is connected with all of those.

Similarly, the law in the larger view is God’s emergency measure to help us. Paul specifically says that in Galatians 3:19. Take, for example the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They were not to eat the fruit of that tree in the garden. In the narrower view, which is preoccupied with what God has done for us on this planet, God said, “don’t touch that tree” before sin. And that would simply be a test of their obedience, or so it’s often explained. But in the larger, great controversy view, they were told not to go near that tree after sin entered the universe. With that in mind, the tree was not so much a test of obedience as something given to protect us. You see, God permitted Satan to tempt Adam and Eve, but Satan was only allowed to approach them at the tree. God was not limiting them, He was limiting Satan! You see, the more one takes the larger view, the less arbitrary God’s requirements, measures, and provisions look. He simply looks a whole lot better in the great controversy view.

Lou: This definitely helps us understand the reason and the meaning behind God’s actions and, at times, lack of action. But this leads me to one final question, “If God won the war at Calvary, then why isn’t it over? Why is it still going on? In fact, why didn’t it end when God threw Satan and his angels out of heaven?”

Graham: Obviously the expulsion of Satan from heaven was a victory, a physical victory. But God was not satisfied with that alone. There were still unresolved questions and wonderings among His family. And so He waited. But when Jesus said, “It’s finished,” something was finished. And Revelation indicates He was recognized in heaven as having won the war (Rev 5:6-14). So why does He still wait? Is it that the war has been won in the minds of His children throughout the universe, but not here on this planet? We’re still trying to make up our minds. And it’s essential that we not only make up our minds, but be so settled into it that we cannot be moved during the terrible events that will happen before the second coming. It is in mercy that He waits.

Lou: I’m sure we’ll have more on this as the series progresses. Tell us about the next chapter.

Graham: The next chapter deals with the question, “What Went Wrong in God’s Universe?” What went wrong in the family? It will be a fresh look at sin in the larger setting of the great controversy. Sin is much more than just breaking the rules, it is a breakdown of trust and trustworthiness. This will take us to the heart of the issue in the war. Until we know what’s gone wrong, how can we understand God’s efforts to set things right?

Note from Jon Paulien: This blog concludes chapter one of Conversations About God, my edited transcript of a 1984 series of lectures followed by questions involving Graham Maxwell and then-pastor Lou Venden. I will begin sharing chapter two shortly.

Questions and Answers (1:4)

Lou Venden: Graham, you mentioned that Martin Luther couldn’t see this larger perspective of the cosmic war perspective and that he had trouble with the book of Revelation. Why do you suppose he had that kind of trouble?

Graham Maxwell: Why don’t we read it his own words, from his Preface to the book of Revelation, in English translation of course. “The book of Revelation approximates the fourth book of Esdras. I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” And he gives his reasons. As he looked at it, “Christ is neither known nor taught in the book of Revelation,” even though it’s “The Revelation of Jesus Christ.” And we know what his policy was for evaluating books in the Bible, because in the Preface to James he wrote, “Any book that inculcates Christ deserves to be in the Bible. Whatever does not teach Christ is not even apostolic.” If even Peter or Paul should write a book, it’s not apostolic if it doesn’t teach Christ. And a little later on he writes, “This is the principle that I use in my evaluation of books.” We have a name for that: the “Christomonistic principle.” That’s the “Christ alone” principle. If I don’t find Christ in the book, then it doesn’t belong in the canon. That’s a very good principle in theory. But what if the one making the evaluation doesn’t have a full picture of Christ? Based on his picture of Christ, Luther was ready to rule out four books of the Bible.

Lou: Rather than letting these books expand his understanding and picture of Christ.

Graham: Yes. It was a little backwards for Luther to do it that way. But when you think of the many wonderful things he did, I suppose we should allow him that. But based on what we know today, can we find Christ in the book of Revelation? I think so. So on the Christomonistic principle which Luther laid down, I take all sixty-six books seriously. The principle’s alright, but we’ve made a little progress since then.

Lou: And that would be supported by the book of Revelation’s own claim to be the “revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Graham: Right at the beginning (Rev 1:1). And look at the whole first chapter. It’s all about Christ, in His human form. And later on in the book, it’s about how He’s coming back and what He’s doing in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The book of Revelation is full of Him.

Lou: But now, Graham, in our reading in the book of Revelation, which you shared with us, it seems so clear; there’s a statement here that war broke out in heaven, and so on. But I’m wondering—how widely is this perspective shared by the Christian world in general? That is, the idea of a war, and the great controversy, this “larger view”, as you refer to it.

Graham: It’s strange that not many know about this. It’s as if there is a conspiracy of silence. Yet we’re finding more and more people in the nineteenth century and earlier who did see glimpses of this larger view. Since college days I’ve always enjoyed Milton– Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained. There’s part of the picture there, not the full picture.

One of the best at expressing a larger view was a preacher named Henry Melvill, who lived in England in the mid-nineteenth century. He was a magnificent preacher, and his wife used to neatly write out his sermons for him to present in no less a place than St. Paul’s cathedral in London. Melvill preached about a crisis among the angels, how they needed their loyalty confirmed by the very things God revealed through the death of Jesus. And Melvill was no minor figure, after his death, he was buried in St. Paul’s cathedral, an honor restricted to a very few.

One person who particularly enjoyed his writings was Ellen White. She had his book in her library. I don’t know anyone to this day who has expressed the larger view as well as Ellen White. Her work was based on all sixty-six Bible books and reading the marvelous writings of Melvill and others. Let’s look at one place where she lays out this larger view:

But the plan of redemption had a much broader and deeper purpose, broader and deeper than the salvation of man. It was not for this alone that Christ came to the earth. It was not merely that the inhabitants of this little world might regard the law of God as it should be regarded, but it was to vindicate the character of God before the universe. To this result of His great sacrifice, that is its influence on the intelligences of other worlds, as well as upon man, the Savior looked forward, when just before His crucifixion, He said, “Now is the judgment of this world. Now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto Me.” The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan. It would establish the perpetuity of the law of God, and would reveal the nature and the results of sin. (Patriarchs and Prophets, 68-69)

The statement of Jesus that she quoted above is from John 12:31-32. Although the King James Bible says “draw all men” here, Ellen White leaves the word men out in this quotation. She says simply “draw all,” which points to a much larger view of things. While there were saints through the years who spoke about this larger view, Ellen White is the one who summed it up the best to date, and seemed to understand it the most clearly.

Questions and Answers (1:3)

In the original conversations, Graham Maxwell delivered a monologue on each topic and then Lou Vended (pastor of the Loma Linda University Church at the time) followed up with his own questions triggered by the monologue and questions written down by people in the audience. The questions and answers sometimes ramble, as conversations do, but they are always interesting.

Lou Venden: Here’s a question related to the war in heaven. What about the angel who seems to start the war, the one named “Day Star” or Lucifer? If God knew that there would be all this trouble, and that Lucifer would be at the center of it, why did He create Lucifer?

Graham Maxwell: That, of course, raises the question whether God does know everything in the future. And there are good saints who wonder about that. I would rather find an explanation that would allow me to say God can see the end from the beginning. The past, the present, and the future: they’re all alike to Him. And yet I’m still free. My understanding would be that when God created Lucifer, He knew what Lucifer would do. And yet He went ahead anyway. He knew what it would cost Him. He knew what it would cost His children. And yet He went ahead. And when you think of the anguish that has been involved in solving this problem and settling this war, there must be something of infinite value at stake, or God would not have done this.

He certainly had other options that might have seemed easier. When Lucifer began to entertain these rebellious thoughts, God could have eliminated him right there and then. What damage would that have done? Well, the angels looking on might think, “I’d better not have bad thoughts or I might get eliminated, too.” But after eliminating Lucifer, God could then have blotted out all memory of the elimination so no one would know. And He could do that an infinite number of times and no one would know but God.

So why didn’t He do it? Is it that He couldn’t live with the fact that He was doing that? Or is it that He wants us to know what He did do? He definitely did not to take a shortcut. He allowed Lucifer to develop these thoughts, and to spread them among the angels, knowing what it would cost Him and cost His friends on this planet. We’ve all participated a little in the larger view. But knowing the thousands of years it would take, and all the misunderstanding and the anguish, God said “I will go ahead anyway.” And the angels understand this and tell Him, “You did this magnificently. And we’re with you for the rest of eternity.” So what was at stake in this decision? That’s the big thing.

Lou: This perspective that you’re sharing here and throughout this book includes a war, a crisis of distrust, and whether God can be trusted!

Graham: Right. It’s not about power. If it was about God’s power, He could have settled things in a second. It would be easy to show that God is more powerful than Satan. In fact, such a demonstration is hardly necessary, since even the devil is already convinced. James tells us that when the devil thinks about the power of the One who hung the whole vast universe in space, it scares him. He shudders with fear (James 2:19). So I don’t think we should spend too much time arguing about God’s power. Of course He’s infinite in majesty and power. The conflict is not over who has the power, but over who’s telling the truth. God has been accused of abusing His power.

Questions and Answers (1:2)

Lou Venden: We should not use the idea of God’s sovereignty as an excuse to ignore issues related to His character.

Graham Maxwell: I think where that idea really comes from is Romans 9, where you have the verse, “who are you to question God? Who are you to answer back to God?” (Rom 9:14-26, especially 20-21) But Romans 9, I believe, has been misunderstood by some very saintly people, including a notable theologian in reformation days. One really needs to put Romans 9 in the whole context of Romans —certainly in the context of chapters 1 through 9.

In Romans 1-8, Paul has been saying to his audience (which is made up of both Jews and Gentiles) “I have great good news for you. God will save all who trust Him—whether you are Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female. He’ll save everybody who trusts Him.” And as Paul was developing chapters 1-8, he could sense that certain members of His audience (descended from Abraham) were not taking this too kindly, because they thought that they had a special relationship with God. It was as if God had made a deal with their ancestor in their behalf. That’s why they were so concerned with things like their genealogy.

When Paul got to the end of chapter 8, therefore, he sensed that some of his readers would be quite offended. So in essence he turned to them and said, “I sense that some of you don’t like what I’ve said, that God is the kind of God that would save all who trust Him. But when you think that way, aren’t you suggesting that you would run the universe better than God? Are you saying God cannot save all who trust Him? Let me tell you something: God is going to run this universe precisely as He wishes. Just as the potter takes a lump of clay, and makes of the same clay a vessel for honor, and a vessel for dishonor (Rom 9:21), so God has the right—if He wants to exercise it—to run His universe any way He likes!”

Some people take that out of context and say, “God takes the material we are all made of and makes some to be saved and some to be lost. So, what’s the use of trying to know Him at all? Our destiny has already been determined.” No, what Paul is saying in Romans 9 is that God has just as much authority as the potter—actually much more so. He created this universe. He’s going to run it precisely as He wishes. And He won’t ever change. You can count on it. Does Romans 9 mean that God is arbitrary? Not in the context of chapters 1-8 where Paul has already explained how God runs the universe. God is so infinitely gracious that He values nothing higher than our freedom, and will save all who trust Him. But He doesn’t expect us to trust Him as a stranger, so at infinite cost He has revealed the truth about Himself. And that’s what Paul’s implied audience didn’t like. So Paul is really saying in Romans 9, “You impudent, irreverent people. How dare you tell God how to run His universe! How does God run His universe? Please read Romans 1-8. God’s treatment of the universe is infinitely gracious.”

Lou: But that raises another question, why would a God who is infinitely powerful, who can run the universe any way He wants to, allow a conflict like the one we read about in the twelfth chapter of Revelation? Why would He allow a war in heaven to happen?

Graham: That’s a great question. If God has that much authority and power, how could a war in heaven even take place? This question is the reason why those who stress the sovereignty of God have great difficulty allowing for a war in heaven. And it’s the reason many of the reformers really couldn’t use that sixty-sixth book of the Bible. Luther, for example, says “it was fancied that there was a war.” He just couldn’t wrap his mind around the idea. But to me it’s one of the most wonderful things about God. Though He had the infinite power necessary to stop such a war before it even started, He did not do so. God must consider something else of far greater value than our mere submission to His power, because He allowed Lucifer’s rebellion in heaven to grow and grow. By secular standards of good administration, God was weak. It was bad management. I mean, how long would a pastor last in our church, if there was such chaos in the membership? The committee would meet!

Lou: The pastor would move on, wouldn’t he!

Graham: Yes. Shall we ask God to move on, then, because of weakness on His part? We know He has infinite power, yet He allowed this war to develop. He allowed the questions to arise. That tells me there is something of even greater importance to God than our mere submission to His infinite power.

Questions and Answers (1:1)

In the original conversations, Graham Maxwell delivered a monologue on each topic and then Lou Vended (pastor of the Loma Linda University Church at the time) followed up with his own questions triggered by the monologue and questions written down by people in the audience. The questions and answers sometimes ramble, as conversations do, but they are always interesting.

Lou Venden: We’re calling this book Conversations About God. But just above you said that Jesus is the one who reveals God; if we’ve seen Him, we’ve seen the Father. Then why shouldn’t this book be called “Conversations About Jesus”?

Graham Maxwell: I’ve run into that question several times. Since Jesus is the one who came to reveal the truth, why don’t we talk more about Him? This implies some interesting things. If we believe that Jesus Christ is God, when we talk about Christ we are talking about God anyway. If the whole purpose of His coming to this earth is to reveal the truth about His Father, He is also revealing the truth about Himself. So whether we talk about God or Christ, we’re talking about God. But I think it adds focus to our discussion to say that the ultimate question really is about God. It is God who came in human form as Christ; this is the ultimate method He used to reveal the truth about Himself. In a sense it is much ado about nothing when someone asks, “shall we talk about God, or shall we talk about Christ?”

Lou: If I’m hearing you rightly, you’re saying that Jesus Himself would really be happiest if we’re talking about the One He came to reveal.

Graham: I’m impressed that when Jesus was here, He would suggest, “Don’t look to Me, look to the Father” (see John 5:19, 30; 8:28-29; 14:6-11; 15:15; 16:26-27) It suggests to me that we should always outdo one another in giving honor. The Trinity does that. The Son is always outdoing Himself to give honor to the Father. But I have noticed that it comes back the other way as well—the Father gives the Son a name above every other name (Phil 2:9-11). And the Holy Spirit, in a self-effacing way, is always drawing our attention to the Father and the Son (John 4:23-24; 15:26; 16:13-14). The way those three divine persons behave is a model to us.

Lou: Here’s a related question: How can you really have a conversation about God? After all, how can we really know God? Take Paul’s statement in Romans 11:33 (RSV): “How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable are His ways.” If that’s the case, who are we to question? God is sovereign, so why should we be sitting here having conversations about God?”

Graham: Ah, who are we to question the inscrutable ways of God? And that’s in Romans. But we need to balance that with Romans 1:19-20, where Paul says (in my words) “you’re without excuse if you don’t know God.” So on the principle of taking the Bible as a whole, and not just “here a little and there a little,” I would have to put Romans 1 alongside Romans 11.

I think when Paul is saying that God’s thoughts are so far above ours (see also Isaiah 55:8-9), that is a reverent recognition that God is infinite. Think of all He knows! We’ll never fully understand God; we’re mere creatures. And at times we need to be reminded of His infinite superiority. But then it’s marvelous that the Infinite One would want to be known.

All through the Bible He says things like “Israel is destroyed because they don’t know Me” (see Hos 4:6) and “I’ve come to this earth that you may know Me” (see John 17:1-5). So it’s pretty clear God wants to be known. But we shouldn’t pretend we’re gods who could know everything that He knows.