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.