New Theology, (NT), is the teaching that you will continue to sin until you die or until Jesus comes. Is this a reformation from the Lord, or doctrines of devils?

If it's a doctrine of devils, it will follow the pattern of Satan. When Satan speaks to man, what's the first thing he tries to do?



Point 1. Satan gets you to doubt the Word of God

Gen. 3:1 Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

That's exactly what God said. Why ask such a question? The commandment of God was very simple. The Devil wants to make it complicated and confusing.

Again:

Matt. 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

What did God just say?

Matt. 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

What God says is very simple to understand. When people try to make it complicated, be on your guard.

Now if the Devil gets you to doubt the Word of God or to lose faith in the Word, what's next? What does the Word do for us?

Psalms 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.The word keeps us from sinning.

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, (Plan A) that ye sin not. And (plan B) if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:The words of John are the Word of God. He's giving you words so you don't sin. Why does he do this if it's not possible to keep from sinning?

John says plan A is to not sin. Plan B is that if you do sin, we have an advocate.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

God can forgive anything we can confess. God is also able to cleanse us. That means we don't continue in sin:

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

1 John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

John 8:11 ...Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Just a few of many verses that promise complete victory over sin in this life. But to those who can't stop sinning:

2 Peter 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

So if it's God's Word that keeps you from sinning then in order for Satan to get you to sin, he must cause your faith in the Word to fail.



Point 2. The Devil gets you to sin

Satan needs you to sin to break your ties with God and prove your loyalty to him. Then he can control you:

John 8:34 ...Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Sin is a personification of Satan:

Gen. 4:7 ...and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Sin is a "him" now, and has a desire. So if, through God's word, God dwells in you and you belong to Him, then through Satan's word, sin, Satan dwells in you and you belong to him.

Back to Eve:

Gen. 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Which of the Ten Commandments did she break.

#1 Satan promised she would be as a god herself. Also because she chose to obey Satan rather than God, and Satan has made himself a god, besides his Creator.
#10 and #8 She coveted and took something that wasn't hers to take.
#5 God was her Father, whom she dishonored.
#9 Satan had lied to her and she was willing to go with it.

And back to Jesus in the wilderness. Satan tries to get Jesus to sin, (Matt. 4:9-10)

So, if New Theology is of the Devil, it must either cause you to sin or defile your faith in Christ, which is what keeps you from sin. Otherwise, why would the Devil bother? It may be that NT gives it's adherents a sense of relief. They are struggling with sin and are having a hard go at it. Then this glorious revelation comes as an angel of light and their eyes are open to see that it's useless to resist temptation, for as long as we are in this mortal flesh, it's impossible to overcome sin.

That's one theory. But let's just look briefly at what NT teaches:



Point 3. The Definition of Sin

New Theology gets some things confused. For one, the definition of sin:


The quote is 1 John 3:4.

But NT teaches that:
-- If you go to college, you sin because Ellen White said some people go to college for selfish purposes.
-- If you eat anything, it is likely to contain pesticide.
-- If you kneel to pray, you will restrict the circulation in your legs.
-- Even if you breath, you breath in polluted air.
-- Even if you give to the poor, you're surely doing it for selfish purposes somehow.

And the list goes on. These are not sins. Even making a blunder and having to apologize is not a sin.

There are also things that are not sin, but go against counsel. We've studied before that if God's counsel is not taken seriously, it will lead to sin, which we see all through the Bible. God counsels us, for instance, to pray, but doesn't command it. So we pray: "..lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil", (Matt. 6:13). You can't say it's a sin to skip your appointment with God in prayer, but you really need to pray for God's help to resist temptation. And the Bible is full of counsel which must be taken very seriously in order for us to resist the attacks of the Devil. Like:

1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

If we become not sober, it's not a sin, but it would be very presumptuous and very dangerous especially in this age when the Devil's temptations are more cunning than ever:

Prov. 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup,
23:33 Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.

There are also things that are just not smart:

1 Cor. 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Something that doesn't edify is like eating ice cream for breakfast. That's not wise because you need better nutrition than that to have a productive day. But it's not a sin. It's just not wise...


Point 4. All Have Sinned

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Do you have to spend the rest of your life committing sin every day to have sin? No. Sin is an action, but it's also a scar left on your body and mind by that action. You can't erase the memory of sin until the coming of Christ.

We know that the word of Jesus gives power. If Jesus tells a crippled man who can't stretch out his arm to stretch out his arm, then he is able to do it by the power of Christ's word. Even if a dead man is told to be alive, it happens.

Jesus told a woman: ".go, and sin no more", (John 8:12)

What if that woman went and served the Lord as a disciple and never broke God's law again for the rest of her life? When she was at the end of her life, and old grandma perhaps, could she say she had no sin? No she couldn't because in her life she committed sin, once a long time ago.



Point 5. Sold Under Sin

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good.
7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.
7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

I don't believe that when Paul wrote this, he was still struggling with sin. This is sort of a dramatized reenactment of a time when he struggled with covetousness, (Romans 7:7). He's telling people that he can identify with them. He puts himself in their place. He knows what it's like to not want to do something and to do it anyway and then just feel terrible about it after it happens. It's a terrifying experience if sin just rises up and takes control and forces you to do something you don't really want to do.

You wanted to do the right thing, but you failed. This is a very good chapter to remember if that happens.

He's defiantly not saying that sin is too powerful to overcome. Then he would be at variance with the rest of the Scriptures.



Point 6. Self Abhorrence

Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
42:6 Wherefore I abhor [myself], and repent in dust and ashes.

So Job hears about God, but now he has a personal experience with God Himself and that causes him to not think so much of himself as he did before. This seems like the experience every prophet gets when he has such an encounter:

Daniel 10:8 Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.

Does that mean that Job was living in sin?

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. (also Job 1:8; 2:3)

And it doesn't say Job sinned: "In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly. ", (Job 1:22).

But doesn't it say Job repented? Therefore he must have sinned. Not necessarily. Many times we see God repenting. That doesn't mean that God sinned. "...in him is no sin", (1 John 3:5).

Gen. 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exo. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Etc..

But does Job say that he's perfect?

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: [if I say], I [am] perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.
9:21 [Though] I [were] perfect, [yet] would I not know my soul: I would despise my life.

This is a very simple concept.



Conclusion

I pray for our great ministries like Amazing Facts, 3ABN, It Is Written, etc. These ministries have all studied New Theology and have decided to reject it. They don't allow the teaching. NT prophets say that it's because the are all corrupted by "legalism".

That sounds a bit scornful. If NT was a reformation from God, you would see the fruits of the Spirit, and not thistles. It would also make sense and server a purpose, but those who are able to rightly divide the Word of truth, (2 Tim. 2:15), find it confusing.

Am I working for the Devil to exalt legalism against a reformation from God?

I guess it's just a wind of doctrine we can all ignore. It will blow over soon. Probably sweep a few with it. Instead of coming up with new ways to pervert the Gospel of Christ, it seems more profitable to come up with ideas of how to share what we already have with the world.

The reformation God has for us, the three angel's message, does not give us a new Gospel, but is a guide to repair the doctrine Christ gave us in the first place, which was damaged in the Dark Ages. You don't need alot of confusing philosophy to bring that message to the world! But it seems such would hinder.

Except for their ideas on the human nature of Jesus, where they are both simply wrong, the so called "New Theology" and the so called "Historic Adventist" tend to have generally speaking (with a very ragged edge sometimes going deep into one side or the other) about half the truth that they use against the rest of the truth.

Generally speaking both groups are preaching more or less half the truth.

Who do you believe is preaching the full truth, if anyone?

All of us see through a glass darkly, the only full truth is in Jesus himself. When Jesus healed the one or two demoniacs when the pigs ran into the sea, they were pagans living in a pagan area. They knew little or nothing about Jews or the Bible, yet Jesus sent them to be the first missionaries to the gentiles.

However most of us hopefully have a spirit of investigation (especially since 1844)and a willingness to grow, and many in these two groups are sincere folling the Bible as best they know. But these two movements have tended to form a tight militaristic camp around some truths, and automatically discount the other camp. Mrs. White and Willie White wrote some very sharp letters to a number of elders who she said were abusing her writings, and you see those names as heros to the historic Adventists.

Well said ....

1) Do you see anyone today either writing or preaching this full truth? Any examples?

2) Yes, we should investigate and grow. Every generation of Seventh-day Adventists need to study and know for themselves personally what they believe and why. That calls for deep individual study of the Bible, the Spirit of prophecy and of the fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That is one of the purposes of this site and others, to encourage people to share their thoughts and views of these very things.

I would like to invite you to come read and participate on one such discussion and investigation on the thread, "Do Scars Remain On Jesus Hands and Feet." We're actually discussing Daniel 2, 7 and Rev. 13. Anyone is welcome irrespective of view or thinking on the topic.

3) What letters do you mean and what "elders" who are "heroes" do you have reference to?

4) How does #3 relate to the subject of "seeing through a glass darkly"? How are you making the connection?

5) Could you tell briefly what your own study and investigation has taught you concerning the Bible and/or the Adventist message?

Look at the books and lectures by A. Leroy Moore, (I'm not positive of their first names, I think the wife is Beatrice, but Dr. and Mrs. Neil from Union College) have both done excellent studies and anything I say would be a poor reflection of their research. Also may I recommend the three chapters "We must all appear: The investagative judgment in the writings of Ellen G. White" and "The mighty opposits: The atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" parts 1 & 2 from the original (yellow cover, not the edited blue cover edition) of Sanctuary and the Atonement by the Biblical Research Committee.

Also, I don't like the term "New Theology" as there is both a specific sub-group of Adventism that this term applys to, but it has had been used to discribe several things in Adventist history such as some of the ideas James White began entertaining as he became older and would only discuss and write to his wife and closestest friends; the writings of Mrs. White after the time period / event focused on in 1888, the views of A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott, and Willie White in contrast to the views of Wilkerson and Washburn (and while sepperate from Wilkerson and Washburn, but with the same general ball park of thought, Haskell), and also it is often used for any idea entertained by Adventists that "I" don't like. But the major focus tends to be the rise of Neo-Lutherianism in the church, especially as seen in the Desmond Ford issue, and the false accusations towards Froom, Anderson and Read with the book Questions on Doctrine [QOD].

That book (QOD) was a sad book, but I would not go as far as the so called "Historic Adventists" who tend to have an attitude of "QOD says it, I don't believe it and that settles it for me." Historic Adventists tend to be more Methodist / Wesleyan in approach (others with more Methodists / Wesleyan are Graham Maxwell and Alden Thompson, they being on Wesley's left with the Historic Adventists on Wesley's right)

One issue I'd like to discuss more is the split between the Neo-Lutherans (or New Theology) and the "Historic Adventists" on the nature of Christ where I understand both sides to be wrong. but it's getting late, I'll have to go into detail later, as it's late and I'm tired, but it looks like Froom, Anderson, Read, Martin, Barnhouse, and even Andresen all held the same view. Martin and Barnhouse did not know if Adventists held the orthodox view. Had Anderson, Read and Froom simply said that we hold the traditonal view, refer Martin and Barnhouse to Mrs. White's quotes and to the theologian she quoted (who discribed the orthodox view beautifully) there would not have been a problem. Sadly trying to down play our semi-arian past, and taking the orthodox view for granted, someone on the QOD committee only stated PART of the orthodox view. Andresen correctly noticed that they only gave half the doctrine and reminded them that there was another half to the doctrine. Sadly their theological decendents, instead of seeing how they held a common view but only stated half of the doctrine, have focused on either the stated part of the doctrine of Andresens pointing out the other half of the docrine as the whole doctrine. They have so built theologies on these two halfs of a traditonal Christian doctrine that I won't even say that they divided the truth in half, but have views that end up being completely wrong although around a core of half a truth.

Right. Good points. I have one last thing I'd like to say on this topic before the new topic is established on this thread.

The argument that has weight in this matter is that you might be sinning and not know it. Maybe there are things you do that are bad, but the Lord will not burden you about those things until you are ready. It may be that you will not be ready any time in this life. Martin Luther was never ready to keep the Sabbath, teach Baptism correctly, or give up drinking and perhaps other things, yet we call him a man of God, for we assume he bore all the burdens the Lord had laid upon that generation.

So the theory goes that we do not overcome sin in this lifetime because surely there are some things the Lord has not yet revealed to us. What kinds of things? We don't know because the Lord hasn't revealed them.

I must admit that makes sense. But how do you know for sure there are not people on the earth serving the Lord faithfully and the Lord has revealed everything that can be possibly called a sin, and they have overcome everything that can possibly be overcome?

Can they say they are not sinners? No. It says all have sinned, so they must have sinned at one point in their lives. That makes them sinners. Nor can they say they have no sin even if they no longer commit any act that can be called a sin. And if they are busy serving the Lord, when do they have time to sin?

But some would accuse them of "self-love".

Well there's a good kind of self-love and a bad kind.
There's a good kind of fear and a bad kind of fear.
There's a good kind of pride and a bad kind of pride.

More on this later.

But let's just look at the bad kind of self-love.


So let's say this was a revelation to Daniel that in his heart was some self-love. We could assume that before his encounter with God, he didn't know it, so the Lord didn't hold it against him. Do we assume that after this revelation, Daniel never overcame whatever it was he was doing that could be called "self-love"? Why would we assume that after she says "The soul thus touched will ... seek, through Christ's righteousness, for the purity of heart that is in harmony with the law of God and the character of Christ". If Daniel was thus touched, then how can we assume He never sought such purity? And if he sought, how could he not have found if the Lord says

Well we know by reading Daniel, to look out for such things, and we are instructed to beware of self-love. Before Daniel, such a thing was unprecedented. Perhaps no one ever imagined that such a thing was a sin. But future generations have a greater revelations, so more to account for.

Maybe that experience changed Daniel's life. Maybe he was more humble from that point on. Maybe he stopped doing whatever it was that showed self-love.

Daniel also thought it was best to pray openly, but Jesus said it's best to pray in secret, (Daniel 6:10; Matt. 6:6). But the Lord never burdened Daniel about that so there's no way we can hold it against him.

And there are other such things we could look at.

I have had experiences when the Lord has drawn near to me during prayer. Maybe we all have. When the Lord draws near, we always abhor ourselves, no matter what. During these experiences, I am terrified as I remember all the time I've wasted playing video games and feeling sorry for myself. I think of all the damage done to my body because of years of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana, when I was a child, before I came to seek the Lord. I loath myself. I feel great remorse thinking how it could be with me if I had never done those things, if I had made the unselfish decision.

Sometimes I have terrible nightmares where I'm still doing those things.

My life is still scarred with sin. "..my sin [is] ever before me", (Psalms 51:3). Does that mean I'm still living in sin? No. By faith I claim the promise that the Lord has forgiven me and given me the victory. Though I may be haunted by nightmares and sometimes feel great remorse, and probably always will for the rest of my life, that does not mean that I have not overcome those sins. Do I still smoke? No. Do I still play video games? No. I have overcome those things a long time ago. Is that pride or self-love? No. I give glory to God for the victory.

Do I still have things to overcome? It's likely there are things. When the Lord burdens me with whatever those things are, may He give grace to overcome. I know He will, and I know I will overcome because I trust in His grace.

Will I alway have things to overcome? Who knows? I hope not and I pray not. If I do get to that point, the Lord will not allow me to know it because He knows it will cause me to fall to pride.

I know I will always have things I can improved upon when it comes to abilities and knowledge. We will be improving and growing throughout all eternity. That does not mean we will always be overcoming sin.

I understand and like your entire post, Rush. I think you have some very good insights and have obviously had some real struggles that brought you closer to Christ and made you desire to be rid of sin in your life, including self-love.

You have an excellent point about God's not showing us all of our sins at once. I'm thankful that he doesn't do that, because I am certain I would have given up a long time ago if I had seen then what I know now about the sins I needed to work on and overcome by God's grace. And I am sure that if he pulled the spiritual blinders off my eyes all at once right now, I most likely would feel like there was no hope for me. So we can be glad that the Holy Spirit is patient with us.

Thanks for those insightful thoughts!

Amen! God has enough wisdom to know how much we'll be able to bear:

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

On the topic of "self-love", here's another challenge:

Matt. 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Some have claimed that this verse means that God understands that we will never overcome the sin of "self-love". I think this is a different kind of self-love. In fact we have to have this kind, or God will destroy us:

Eph. 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

So this kind of self-love tells us to take care of ourselves. It's totally different from the other kind. And what if we don't take care of ourselves?

1 Cor. 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

Is it selfish to take care of your body, the Lord's temple? No. That's something you do to the glory of God; so that you can "..present your bodies a living sacrifice", (Romans 12:1).

If some are still not convinced, we know there's a good kind of pride according to Ellen White:



We know enough about the bad kind of pride.

There's a good kind of spiritual death and a bad kind of spiritual death.

Good kind --> 1 Cor. 15:31 ...I die daily.

Good kind --> Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Bad kind --> Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.

Bad kind --> Eph. 2:1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins:

There's a good kind of fear and a bad kind.

Good kind --> 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Good kind --> 2 Cor. 7:1 ...perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Bad kind --> Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption...

Bad kind --> 2 Tim. 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Bad kind --> 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
Some people even get confused over these kind of things. I'm sorry I can't straiten it out for everybody.

Just what is the "New Theology?" To some of us it's a needed clarification of the gospel. To others it is heretical, no doubt. But just what is it?



" Under "New Theology" Andreasen understood primarily the teachings of Christ's sinless nature and the completed atonement on the cross as presented in the book Questions on Doctrine.."

Is that what Adventists consider to be "the New Theology?" I'm not taking either side here, just asking.

In terms of Adventists' use of "New Theology," it has reference to theology which is heavily influenced by men such as Desmond Ford, who followed many of the ideas of the Evangelicals as described in Geoffry Paxton's book, The Shaking of Adventism. Its views actually go back to D.M. Canright and the theology of A.F. Ballenger about 1900. See:http://www.lmn.org/magazine/169/Ballenger.html/

Thus it denies the Investigative Judgment, 1844, and rejects sanctification as part of of Righteousness by faith, instead viewing it as consisting solely of forensic justification. Significantly New Theology calls into question the authority of the entire mission and work of Ellen White. It essentially rejects the view of Ellen White as expressed in The Great Controversy and in many of her other books concerning the purpose of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the content of the Three Angels' Message, the everlasting gospel, and the view of Christ as our role-model in obeying God's law.

I've got his book, Theology of Crisis or Ellen White's Concept of Righteousness By Faith As It Relates to Contemporary SDA Issues. Published 1979. I've only read parts of it.

Do you know this work and does Moore still stand by what he wrote in it?



I have some of the books by the BRC but not the ones you refer to. Could you briefly summarize what you see as their most significant points-- at least of the yellow covered original? How does it essentially differ from the edited edition?



How do you view 1888?



What are the essence of those accusations, in your thinking, and where do you personally stand on those issues?



I agree with most of what that book contains. I have the book and I still read it quite a lot, actually. However, I tend towards the belief that Jesus had the nature of the post-Fall Adam. I used to take the opposite view but I have been convinced by evidence in the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy that He had a fallen human nature, yet He never sinned even by a thought.

I personally knew Roy Allen Anderson and he was a friend and associate of my father's. They worked together closely in the ministry during the 1970s and early 80s, and he wrote a Forward to one of my dad's books.

One time when I was in his home to make a portrait of him, Elder Anderson talked to me about his memories of the QOD, but to be honest I was concentrating on the photography and did not listen too well to his analysis. I was more interested at that time in him as a man and as a Christian rather than as a former leader in the church. I also saw him and heard him quite a bit when he would visit the youth Sabbath school at the Loma Linda Hill Church for the purpose of encouraging the young people to dedicate their lives to Christ and work to take the Three Angels Messages to the world.



I doubt that Graham Maxwell likes his ideas and beliefs to be pitted against "historic Adventists." I attended Dr. Maxwell's Sabbath school class at the Loma Linda University Church for many years and once did an interview of him in his home for the Insight youth publication. We talked at great length about the Great Controversy theme in Ellen White and in the Bible. I like Dr. Maxwell very much and consider myself a personal friend, although, naturally, this does not mean that I agree with him on everything.

However, to be perfectly frank about this, I know that Dr. Maxwell would not want anyone to necessarily agree with his ideas. Agreeing with him is not uppermost in his priorities. Above all else, Graham Maxwell wants people to ask lots and lots of questions and study on their own and come to their conclusions on the basis of personal conviction from a reasoning, intelligent, wise examination of the weight of Biblical AND Spirit of prophecy evidence.

I don't like to put Adventists in hard and fast categories, whether that refers to liberal or conservative or New Theology or Historic Adventism.



What theologian did she quote? Do you mean the apostle Paul?

I tend to agree with you that it would have been better for them to have pointed Martin and Barnhouse to the writings of Ellen White, but they could not very well do that under the circumstances, because they said they did not believe in Ellen White as any kind of doctrinal authority and therefore they felt duty-bound to show that they could be in some measure independent of Ellen White's views.



Could you briefly state how you understand the Trinity doctrine as it particularly relates to the issues M.L. Andreasen brought up?

Also, please describe what you believe is the full truth which you believe the competing sides, New Theology and Historic Adventists, both fail to teach.

I'm very interested in this whole subject.

Thanks for a good exchange.

Oh Boy! This is gonna be another Mega-Bucket of popcorn thread. I'm glad I just loaded up. Oops, out of canola. Be right back.

You're certainly welcome to join if you like.

No thanks. This is a re-run anyhow.

If that is true, I have not seen the thread.

As I said I do not remember the name of the theologian who Mrs. White used, I just did a quick search on google and I believe that it is "Henry Melvill" but not positive.

As to the phrase that people such as Maxwell and Thompson are similar to the Historic Adventists in that they are all Wesleyan in their approach, but with the "Historic Adventists" being on Wesley's right and Maxwell and Thompson on Wesley's left comes, most directly from a quote in Adventist Today by Dr. David Larson on how both he and his dad (Ralph Larson, a well known pastor who is mostly considered a historic adventist) are both very Wesleyian in their approach, in contrast to Ford and the "New Theology" which is much more Lutheran than Wesleylan, but saying that his Dad is on Wesley's right while he is on Wesley's left, and conversations with Graham Maxwell and Alden Thompson on Dr. Larson's article. I also consider myself Wesleyan but on Wesley's left.

Here's a portrait of Elder Roy Allen Anderson as I remember him. It was made in his home in Loma Linda only about a year before his death.

Yes, she did read Henry Melvill's writings and refer to them or his views at times, as she did to many others.

Have you studied Melvill's writings themselves, apart from Ellen White's quotes of them?

If so, how do they seem to you?

Of course Andreasen was a trinitarian. He was originally semi-arian but kept hearing about the shock of some of Mrs. White's statements that his semi-arian friends saw as trinitarian statements. They were accusing W. W. Prescott of putting in these trinitarian statements and bringing in the heresy of the trinity to the church by putting these statements in as having been written by Mrs. White. Andreasen made an appointment to meet with Mrs. White to learn if she indeed did actually write those quotes and if she was indeed a trinitarian. She met him with the quotes in her handwriting and he left the visit a trinatarian.

Anyway for centuries the church argued and studied about the nature of Jesus and eventually came to the understanding that Jesus had his own unique nature, with similaities to both Adam before and after the fall, but cannot be fully equated to either view, and would unite how totally human Jesus became yet how sinless and divine Jesus was.

Despite a few centuries of intence debate and a few detractors throught out history, basically once this understanding was reached it became so engrained in our culture that few would think in details about it, it became just taken for granted. As we entered the 1890s, which for Mrs. White was the decade of Jesus (where she did more writing on Jesus than ever before) and was making the statements seen as trinitarian, she found a pastor who went beyond taking the idea reached on the nature of God for granted but studied the doctrin and explained it in very clear language. Once again I'm not positive but I believe this was Henry Melvill, but Mrs. White used some of this pastor's best discriptions and summery discriptions.

As Mrs. White brought the church into the orthodox view on the nature of Christ, those who accepted it had again taken the doctrine for granted. In the late 1970s and early 1980s Atlantic Union College's theology department taught that it is only in Adventism that we have people arguing over the nature of Christ. That the rest of the Christian world, after a few centuries of intence debate came to an understanding. Having had this history taught at AUC (and also similar things at the Seminary) as I read A. Leroy Moore's book bout Questions on Doctrine, it dawned on my that Andresen did hold the traditional orthodox view. There was little argument on the traditional view and the can of worms they opened they had no idea of.

Martin and Barnhouse held this view, and they were wondering if we did too. The fact that there was such semi-arian views among many (not all) of our early members they wondered if we held the semi-arian views or the orthodox view. Now when you take something for granted you may be caught off guard to explain it. They could have said "Dispite the history of many semi-arians, we have come to conclude that was wrong and the orthodox view was right, share the Ellen White quotes and say that Mrs. White used ideas found by this one pastor [Henry Melvill?] as discriptive. Had they done that Martin and Barnhouse would have been happy, and Elder Andreasen would have been happy. However someone from the committee wanted to do more than say "Yes, we teach the orthodocx view" they wanted to make a short summery statement of the orthodox view, but only mentioned a small part of the orthodox view, the part of the divinity and perfection of Jesus.

Jim Fleming, a Methodist Archaeologist, was once being interviewed by a missions board. One question he was asked is "Do you believe Jesus to be the eternal God and fully perfect?" Dr. Fleming replied "Yes, I do, however your question is only part of the question that you should have asked, because Jesus is also the son of man. He is as much God as if he was not human and as much man as if he was not God, we must be careful not to focus on one half of this truth as people may forget the other half" [not sure if this is the exact quote but a fairly close phariphrase]. This is exactly what happened with QOD. Barnhouse, Martin, Andreasen, Anderson, Froom and Read all held this traditional view. When someone from the committee tried to summerize the answer they only focused on the eternal perfect God part of the doctrine. Andresen seeing what they said realized that they only gave half the answer and like Fleming pointed out that there was another half to the doctrine.

Sadly the Neo-Lutherans among us have taken this and like the mission board and the committee member, just started to emphessise the divinity and perfection of Jesus. And those who heard Andresen's consern did not realize that he was worried that they only said part of the doctrine, did not catch that Andresen was conserned with the committee giving only half of the doctrine, but took the neglected part as the total. Today's so called "Historic Adventists" are only emphessising the other half of the truth as if it was the whole truth.

I'm going to come back later and talk about the orthodox view and how it was divided but such a bad division that unlike most other points where I say that the two groups both tend to tell part of the truth, when it comes to the nature of christ each group has so twisted their half of the truth that it has become simply wrong. My eyes are heavy now.

Once again I'll be back for this. But instead of waiting for my summeries go a head and read my sources, Moore, Neil, those chapters in Sanctuary and the atonment, and also Henry Melvill, or whoever it was Mrs. White turned to to present the truth.

I'm in agreement with Dr. Fleming as far as I understand him to mean Jesus was both fully God and fully human. (Still is for that matter.)



OK, look forward to continuing the discussion.

@Keven_H

What's your point? Be out with it already. Cut to the chase. State your position and use something that has authority, so we know you're not just making something up, or quoting from someone who cited his own imagination as if it where fact.



Today and yesterday Alexander Scourby read me the book of Job. Job's friends where sure that he had sinned and therefore God was punishing him. They had no evidence at all. Their assumptions where based solely on their own theories which in the end proved to be false. That's what I'll be talking about as soon as I get time.

Meantime you may discuss what the accusers of Job and the disciples of New Theology have in common.

I'm not chasing, to have to cut to, I was on vacation, visiting relatives and friends and not spending much time on the computer, then the flight home was delayed taking all night to get home, followed by a mixture of short naps (4-5 hours) while modifying between flights and work schedules and Air Force weekend, please be patient of my sleep deprived psychosis, I'll be back when I finally get a good night sleep and don't have to rush to work. (but I have given much information already, all I need to do is spend some time defending my thesis, and I've recommended the readings that have had a powerful impact on my understanding that you can look up.)

Speaking of Job, I've been surprised as to how much Bildad sounds like the New Theology and how much Zophar sounds like he's from a "Historic Adventist" institution.

Dear Rush4hire:
While I need to write more on the nature of Jesus but want to be rested after these past few days, as part of this discussion is the issue of "New Theology" and the so called "Historic Adventist" position, a few years ago there was discussions on this topic on another forum. One of the members made a list of points that he saw as and I took his points and made comments on them, I hope you and others find this useful:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Sin: Is it choice or nature. (The New Theology says it is nature.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both. (yes I need to go into detail here, but as I said this is a rough draft and sadly don't have the time to edit much: However, the New Theology is so focused on the sinful nature that they do not realize the importance of free will and choice and victory, but some new theology opponents need to study more into what the Bible and Mrs. White teach about what the sinful nature is. It is comparable to the alocholic who starts to attend A. A. or the smoker who has just given up smoking. The New Theology's attitude would be similar to saying to the Alocholic "Since you can't stop being an alocholic, don't worry about drinking." and some new theology opponents end up with an attitude similar to "ok, you stoped drinking so forget about it."

The sinfulnature is a disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world, to esteam ourselves more highly than our brethern. We usually do this by somehow dissmissing and littling others, or trying to control and manipulate them. The solution is "When we love the world as he [Jesus] has loved it, then for us his mission is accomplished; we are fitted for heaven for we have heaven in our hearts." We are sinners because we have the tendency to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world, and these selfish motives have a craving on us similar to the craving of alochol on the alocholic or tobacco on the chronic smoker. We have the choice to either allow the sinful nature to control us, or to criticizise it and oppose it in ourselves and look to Jesus and choose to try to love the world as Jesus has loved it. But even our desire and choice to turn to Jesus to go to heaven is tinged with selfishness.)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Humanity of Christ: Is it prefall, synthetic, or postfall? (The New Theology says it is not postfall.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I dissagree with the above statement because it is too roundabout. The New Theology flatly and clearly says that the human nature of Christ is prefall. Usually in this debate both sides tend to have at least part of the truth. This time both sides of this controversy are wrong (despite the cries from both sides saying they are righ).

This is an issue that the church had argued over for centuries, finally came to an understanding, taught that understanding for centuries. Mrs. White taught that understanding, since this understanding had been around for centuries; After finally coming to the truth on this point, the church took the truth for granted so that even with the semi-arian views the pioneers still accepted this view without controversy. But in the 20th century in Adventism a poorly worded part of a very sad book has caused us to give up the truth, with two major sides that are BOTH wrong. This is indeed a case where two wrongs don’t make a right.

The truth is that Jesus had his own unique nature, which cannot be classified in either category although it includes elements from both, and is different from both. Jesus hungered, needed sleep and has so many things that pre-fall Adam did not have. In the immage of God' pre-fall Adam's appitites, desires and passions were naturally under the control of reason. Like us, Jesus' appitites, desires and passions are NOT naturally under the control of reason, but like us he had to moment by moment to choose to submit them to reason. But unlike our post-fall nature, Jesus did NOT have in him the disposition to think he was for hiimself by making less of the outside world. He did not have the disposition to think he was for himself by esteaming himself more highly than his breathern, no desire to serve self, to seek the highest place, and this makes all the difference in the world which is ignored by some of those who oppose the new theolgoy, but very much studied and supported by others who oppose the new theology.

Since this horrible events took place, over the decades since the 1950s you see a slow increase among "some New Theology Opponents" making the idea of Jesus having a post-fall nature more and more important, so that today it holds a central role that we do not necessarily see in the forefathers of this group in years past (although they want to make today’s central focus be projected back in history) but this point is wrong, and as they shift their foundation from the development of a Christ-like character, to making a prerequeset of feeling that you need this view of the nature of Christ to develop that Christ-like character, they are in danger of instead of building upon a strong rock foundation, to end up trying to build a stone house on a foundation of rotten wood.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Justification: Is it counting right or counting and making right? (The New Theology says only counting right.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you study it out, the words “Justification” and “Conversion” in Mrs. White’s writings are interchangeable, and like sanctification, is the work of a lifetime. The New Theology has “Justification” a once in a moment event, punctuallier, like the word “wedding” while in reality it is a word that has a starting moment and continues beyond that point, like the word “marriage” It is a constant moment by moment choice to follow Jesus, a constant moment by moment choice that opens our will up to the work of the Holy Spirit and the work of the Holy Spirit is Sanctification. It is a cause and effect relationship so close that you never have the cause without the effect, and you never have the effect without the cause.

Both the so called “New Theology” and to a lesser extent (at least less in theory, although in practice they tend to be almost as bad) "some of the New Theology opponents ” have a tendency for too much separation between Justification and Sanctification and their cause and affect relationship. these two with "The New Theology" focusing more on Justification, the cause, but think it has been done once and for all and all thereafter is hunky dory, mean while "Some New Theology Opponients" end up getting too focused on Santification, the results, with an acknowledgement of the cause, but they so end up focused on the results, some to where they end up in danger of missing the cause. This results in the “New Theology” makes us happy to be immature and we blindly head towards disaster, and “Some New Theology opponents” encourages spiritual growth but in a way that too often can end up frustrating and often making us into mean people and cause people to give up.

On several topics, and especially on the topic of justification and santification these two groups have a tendency to latch on to part of the truth and use their part of the truth against the rest of the truth, and make aspects of the truth fight with each other. You have two camps that have divided the truth, when what the Bible actually teaches is actually someplace between the two camps, or more often a oneness of the two camps.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Obedience: Is it a condition of salvation or does it only follow salvation? (The New Theology says that it only follows.)
--------------------------------