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.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By beholding Jesus, choosing to follow Jesus, we will be changed into the character of Jesus. Here the truth about Hell and the purpose and perpetuity of God’s law can clarify the situation.

If you think that the world is going to end in a barbecue, or some other way of God doing two separate acts, and you are trying to figure out how to get God to do the nice thing to you, you can get confused over the purpose and perpetuity of God’s law, and depending on which texts and quotes you choose to focus on, you either have obedience being a key, and end up focusing on the obedience, or if you are neo-lutherans (what is probably a more accurate term for the “New Theology”) it is faith in Christ that saves you and obedience follows at a secondary level.
But if God is the ONLY source of life, and God’s character is love, and the only way we can live is through life borrowed from God, and if we want to live forever we need to constantly choose to connect to the only source of life, which happens to reproduce his character within us, and at the end when we see Him, and He treats us all the same, and some will want to just come closer and closer to him, others have developed a characteristic of refusing to allow him into their lives, thus separating from the only source of life. The process of focusing on Jesus naturally brings about obedience, and refusing that action will end up killing us. I know that (unlike the neo-Lutherans who are simply stupid on this point—sorry I’ve looked for nicer words than “stupid” but non of the other words I tried fit.) "Some New Theology Opponents” have a correct theoretical understanding and verbal confession to this truth their misunderstanding of hell causes them to subconsciously in practice focus too much on the results instead of the method that will bring about the desired results.

Also, both groups in their own ways end up trying to reach some “POINT” at which they have made it where they know, or hope that God will say to them “Yes you can come into heaven and not be sent to hell.” The “New Theology” complains about others being more focused on works, but when it comes to the “New Theology” they still have a salvation based on works, the difference is that they have a short list of works, which usually consists of saying the proper words about Jesus and the ability to give a history lesson on the cross. "Some New Theology Opposers” although having the potential for being correct on this point, could too often end up pushing for uniformity and pushing faster than the Holy Spirit is working on others, and sometimes throwing in ideas that they think fits the standard of “obedience” which may or may not be what the Bible and Mrs. White are talking about.


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

5. Justification and future sin: Are sins cancelled forever at justification, or is retaining justification conditional? (The New Theology says sins are cancelled forever at Justification.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here again the “New Theology’s” false view of hell causes them to fall into a dangerous conclusion. They see salvation as merely legal adjustment so that God will say to you “Ok, you can go into heaven and don’t have to go into hell” and if you say the magic words about Jesus and can give a history lesson of the cross, “presto-Changejo” God is going to let you into heaven. They do not have an alternative if they find a God who is saying “You are welcome into heaven!” but where the character they developed causes them to not feel comfortable approaching the One So Holy, The Lion of Judah, and choose to run away from Jesus dispite his love and forgiveness. Both groups, the ““New” theology and some of their opponents are too focused on “How do I get God to let me into heaven” instead of becoming people who would want to live forever in heaven with God.


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

6. The Gospel: Does it include justification only, or both justification and sanctification? (The New Theology says that the gospel only includes justification.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A very accurate statement for what New Theology teaches. Again this is the so intense cause and effect relationship that neither side has close enough, Maybe people who are confused by the New theology can see the truth clearer if we rephrase the issue into the question “Will you let the Holy Spirit to work in you?” The “New Theology” feels “all you have to do is TO SAY that you are willing to let the Holy Spirit work in you; The Holy Spirit doesn’t actually have to do it, and God will let you into heaven.” On the other hand, "Some New Theology Opponents” are in danger of being so focused on the work that they move faster than the Holy Spirit and can even add more works than God intended, and develop a character instead of christlike is more like an anxious child in the back seat of the car crying “are we there yet?”


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

7. 1844/Heavenly Sanctuary/Investigative Judgment: Does it really matter? (The New Theology advocate often says that the heavenly sanctuary is necessary, yet in his actual teaching, closely examined, the opposite is shown.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you see salvation as “How do I get God to allow me to enter heaven?” the investigative judgment may be necessary, or it may not be necessary. When you see salvation as “Jesus is beautiful, whether I’m saved or lost, Jesus is still beautiful, and saved or lost there is no place better to be than in the hands of Jesus, I want to learn more and more about him” we have a growing relationship. The unfallen are also saved through righteousness by faith, they understand what Jesus did for them by studying what he does to save the fallen, and at the end it is good to give them a review showing them what Jesus did for us. And for us, as the centuries pass and we are further weakened by sin, God has to give us more aides to help our weakened condition, and living in a time where we can listen to the word of God when driving or working around the house, where there are findings in the field of archaeology and cultural and historical and linguistic studies that help us learn more about the Bible, and thus more about the Bible’s God, and by beholding we become changed. The importance of the investigative judgment in the last days, whether it begins in 1844 or the year 2525, is crucial to this understanding.


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

8. The Spirit of Prophecy: Shall we use it selectively, or gather all bearing data and determine by weight of evidence? (The New Theology makes only a selective use.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On this point I believe that both sides end up using both Mrs. White and the Bible selectively, editing them to fit their particular view then using the words they found as a way of forcing their view on to others. And once again it often ends up being part of the truth being used against another part of the truth instead seeking for a fuller understanding of the truth. Both sides tend to want to approach inspired writings from the perspective of the 1919 Philadelphia interdenominational Bible conference, instead of the approach promoted by James White, Ellen White, A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and Willie White. But what does Mrs. White say about the way she wants to be used? It is interesting to go into the White Estate Vault and read correspondence between Ellen and or Willie White and those who have become the heroes of the so called "Historic Adventists" [people like Wilkerson and Washburn]


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

The substance of 1888: Shall we hear Heaven’s message through A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and Ellen G. White, or ignore it in favor of a selected and highly interpreted set of the ideas of Martin Luther? (The New Theology either does not address 1888 or puts an enormous spin upon it, preferring to advance the idea that Luther’s view on righteousness by faith was essentially complete, meaning the 1888 message was only a reemphasis, not actually something necessary and new.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point, I share the same criticism of the “New Theology”. Now what "Some New Theology oponents” needs to be careful of is that in their writings they have at times interpreted 1888 through the writings of people who origionally opposed Jones and Wagner, were perplexed over Mrs. White’s endorsement of them, and have tried to develop a compromise between their earlier view, yet have room for Jones and Wagner.

Thanks Keven_H. That was very insightful. So basically, you're saying New Theology is evil, but the way some are going about refuting it is a travesty, like throwing water on a grease fire..

I didn't mean to get defensive. It looked like you where suggesting that I should get my money back for my theology degree and go to whatever school you're going to. But if Paul can say it, so can I. My doctrine came from God, not from men:

Gal. 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I agree that so much focus on the nature of Christ is not necessary. It's an open and shut case. Jesus didn't have the nature of Adam before the fall or after the fall. That's corny. If He did, he would have grown to 12 feet tall, and if that where the case it would have surely been mentioned somewhere in the gospels.

He had our nature. He overcame sin in our flesh, so we don't have an excuse.

So what advantage did Christ have? A sense of purpose. He was the Messiah. If he would have failed, this whole thing would have never existed, and God would have swept it under the rug and no one would have known about it ever and He would have started all over.

But Christ was lined up to succeed. God set Him up with everything He needed. He had a good mom and dad and the Scriptures which His life fulfilled, and the nation of Israel, and even his brothers to pick on Him growing up so He wouldn't fit in and be tempted, but would have to spend much time alone with God in prayer and Bible study. Ya, Jesus had some advantages. The wise men gave Him gold, frankincense and myrrh. No wise men gave my parents such things!

So I have an excuse to sin. But I don't have an excuse to keep sinning for the rest of my life. If Jesus overcame in my flesh, I can overcome in my flesh too. I can have a strong sense of purpose. I can imagine what if I had to be the Messiah and be offered as a sacrifice. What if the salvation of mankind depended on whether I gave into the temptations of Satan or resisted? Actually it does to some degree. If I sin, I can't help other people be saved. And those people God had lined out for me to witness to will be lost because I took the selfish course and was seduced by the world. Ya, alot is riding on our decisions. So we can continue developing our relationship with God through the Word and prayer and sharing our faith and we won't have time to sin. Satan can say "hey wanna sin?" and we can say "What? I'm busy. Whatever you need, try again next week." And keep blowing him off and keep focusing on the whatever thing God has for us to do at the time and keep an eye on our ultimate ambitions of glorifying our God like when Solomon built his temple, and like when Ezra and Nehemiah and crew kept focus on their temple and city. You suppose they thought much about sin when they where involved in such an important work?

And what are we building?

Isaiah 58:12 And [they that shall be] of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath...

The accusation NT makes against God are horrendous. They accuse Christ of leading people to sin. Self-love is a sin, but what is self-love? They say that if we follow Jesus it's out of self-love, and even serving the Lord is a sin.

Jesus said "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men", (Matt. 4:19).
Jesus said "...lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven", (Matt. 6:20).
Jesus said "In my Father's house are many mansions... I go to prepare a place for you.", (John 14:2).
Jesus said "...whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister, and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all", (Mark 10:44).

Is Jesus leading us to sin? Then He would be an accomplice to sin. Therefore wanting treasure and mansions in heaven, or to be fishers of men, or even to be chief among our brethren, is not a sin, or you charge Christ with sin.

I'm sure Ellen White got the concept of "self-love" from the Bible:

2 Tim. 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

That's what self-love is. That's what she's talking about. It's pride related as you can see in the context. When people come to Christ. they see the beauty of His spotless character and they are humble. They abhore their self-love and they work it out so they overcome it. They learn from the Master how to be self-sacrificing and self-denying.



Those who come to Christ are those who are becoming Christians, not the saints who have come to Christ a long time ago. We don't keep coming to Christ and leaving Him. We abide in Him, (1 John 2:27,28).

Ellen White was not suggesting that Daniel had a self-love. She's just saying that if Daniel walked with God all his life, (being aged by chapter 10), and yet when the Lord drew near, he abhorred himself, and the same with all the prophets of God, even Job after 150 years of walking with God, (more on Job later..), then HOW MUCH MORE should a common sinner be willing to humble himself before God when he comes to Christ.

Anyone with self-love is not converted:


Those are only the first few out of 250 quotes with the tern "self-love".

If you want to be a disciple of Christ, you can't love yourself more than God. But when NT disciples point their fingers at their brethren charging them with "self-love" and saying they will never overcome that and it would be better if they would admit to it, that's what reminded me of Job and his friends:

Job 8:20 Behold, God will not cast away a perfect [man], neither will he help the evil doers:

11:14 If iniquity [be] in thine hand, put it far away, and let not wickedness dwell in thy tabernacles.
11:15 For then shalt thou lift up thy face without spot; yea, thou shalt be stedfast, and shalt not fear:

They even imagined specific sins:

Job 22:5 [Is] not thy wickedness great? and thine iniquities infinite?
22:6 For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing.
22:7 Thou hast not given water to the weary to drink, and thou hast withholden bread from the hungry.
22:8 But [as for] the mighty man, he had the earth; and the honourable man dwelt in it.
22:9 Thou hast sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless have been broken.
22:10 Therefore snares [are] round about thee, and sudden fear troubleth thee;

They didn't have any evidence at all. It was just their theory that said if a man suffers like that, God must be punishing him for his sins. Similarly the prophets of New Theology keep telling us we have been committing sin and thus make false accusations.

Job's friends urged him to just confess his sins and it would all go away. But Job didn't have any sins to confess. If he said he did, he would have been lying. He hadn't committed one sin since he was a youth:

13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.

If the Devil wanted to dig something up on him, he would have to go back to his childhood. How pitiful. Job was a perfect man and God's greatest representative in all the earth. That's what God said: Job 1:1,8; 2:3

He was too busy representing Christ on earth, constantly taking care of the needs of others.

Job 29:12 Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and [him that had] none to help him.
29:13 The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy.

29:15 I was eyes to the blind, and feet [was] I to the lame.
29:16 I [was] a father to the poor: and the cause [which] I knew not I searched out.

Job was the master of pure and undefiled religion:

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

That hedge was too many layers thick for Satan to get through. There where too many thankful widows praying for him too. And in order for you to sin, Satan has to get through. No one sins, but at the enticements of Satan, for "..He that committeth sin is of the devil", (1 John 3:8). And the promise is given for us to claim and not to deny:

James 4:7 .. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.

Resist the Devil with the Word, the Sword of the Spirit like Jesus did.

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

Draw near to God by doing the things God delights in:

Isaiah 58:6 [Is] not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
58:7 [Is it] not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

Amen.

Good exchanges on this thread, Kevin and Rush. I am really busy now or I would take part, too. So I will just read for now and enjoy it that way until I have more time to devote to writing.

Keep up the great attitudes!

I'm not so sure about calling the Neo-Lutherans (or new theology) evil, nor would I call the so called "Historic Adventists" evil, only that they both have a tendency of using a portion of the truth as an excuse to reject other, and interestingly in the fields that interest time they have tended to (with a very gagged edge, not nicely 50% 50%) both have some very important truths that they have built man made traditons on, and these truths tend to be what the other tends to shy away from.

The bottom line for me is that, with the Holy Spirit, believers are enabled to obey or keep or observe the commandments of God. I believe that we are empowered to resist and overcome all sin, including sinful tendencies with which we are born.

Of course, it goes without saying that only the person who has faith in Christ and has been born of God can obey God's will.

(Do believers sin and fall? Yes. That is dealt with in 1 John 1:5 to 2: 1-2.)

The danger with saying that no one can really obey God's will is that this teaching is really an attack on the whole purpose of the raising up of this church, which is to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Christ. An important part of that preparation is giving glory to God and worshipping Him, which we cannot possibly do without also obeying Him. This preparation leads to a group who keep the commandments of God.

The Bible plainly says there are people who keep the commandments of God. Anyone who teaches that this it is impossible to keep the commandments is contradicting plain scripture such as in Rev. 12 and 14 and 1 John 2: 3,4; 3: 1-10; 5: 2,3. Whether they know it or not, they are siding with Satan in the great controversy, because he is the one who accuses God of having a law that humanity is totally incapable of obeying.

We can define sin in such a way as to say it is utterly impossible for anyone even with the Holy Spirit to obey God. I believe that is false doctrine. It makes our sinfulness and our natures such a slave to sin that even God has no power. This contradicts Romans 6 and 8.

(The man of Romans 7 is not the model for the Christian since he is under conviction of the Spirit but does not have the Holy Spirit either dwelling in him or leading him. Compare Romans 7: 13-24 with 8:1-9.)

"This is the will of God, your sanctification." Sanctification in the Biblical sense is both instantaneous when we accept Christ into our lives and surrender totally to Him-- being set apart for His holy purposes-- and it is an ongoing process that occurs over a whole lifetime. Both are equally God's will.

I guess EGW was part of the New Theology because she stated that as long as life lasted that there would be no stopping point where we could say that we have arrived. Other statements say the same....

By emphasizing this perfectionist theory you are inadvertently teaching legalism....Focus on Jesus and let things take care of themselves. In Him you are complete!

Rob