WHAT IS NEW IN THE NEW THEOLOGY?

Gerhard Pfandl, Ph.D. The term "New Theology" was first used by M.L. Andreasen in 1959 in his Letters to the Churches which he wrote in response to the publication of the book Questions on Doctrine in 1957. In these letters Andreasen, who had been one of our most notable theologians for many years, attacked the denominational leadership for what he considered as selling Adventism down the river for evangelical recognition. What had happened? ADVENTIST - EVANGELICAL CONVERSATIONS In 1955, Walter Martin, a Southern Baptist clergyman, contacted the General Conference with a number of questions. Martin, at that time, was a Ph.D. candidate at New York University, researching for a dissertation on the subject "Non-Christian Religions in the United States." In connection with his research, he was preparing a book against Seventh-day Adventists and wanted to ascertain as accurately as possible what we really believed and taught. This contact led to a series of official conversations with a group of evangelical leaders. The evangelicals involved were Walter R. Martin, George E. Cannon and, later, Donald G. Barnhouse. George Cannon was a professor of theology and Donald Barnhouse was then a popular radio preacher in Philadelphia, pastor of a large Presbyterian Church in the same city and editor in chief of Eternity Magazine. The Adventist leaders who participated in these conversations were LeRoy Edwin Froom, W.E. Read, T.E. Unruh and, later, Roy Allan Anderson, then editor of Ministry. The purpose of these discussions was to provide Walter Martin with an accurate account of the distinctive beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists for his book. The group met a number of times in the offices of the General Conference throughout the period of about one year. M. L. Andreasen, who by then had been in retirement for some years, took exception to these discussions. To him, they represented a capitulation - a sell-out - on
1

the part of the Adventist leadership. A confrontation developed between him and high-ranking Adventist leaders, particularly the then President of the General Conference, Reuben F. Figuhr, with whom Andreasen exchanged a series of strongly worded letters, especially during the year 1957 (Roy Adams, The Nature of Christ [Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1994], p. 44). When he was denied a hearing, on his terms, Andreasen went public with Letters to the Churches. In letter 1 on page 13 he wrote, "Whoever accepts the new theology must reject the Testimonies. There is no other choice." 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. In time the term "New Theology" came to be used to describe people in the church who, among other things, believed (1) that Christ's human nature was sinless, (2) that man is born in sin, and (3) that the atonement was completed at the cross. IS THE NEW THEOLOGY REALLY NEW? There are Adventists who honestly feel that the "New Theology" is a masterpiece of Satan, and that those who accept it have apostatised. The "New Theology" is a worldwide problem. It has been used by Satan in an endeavour to derail God's remnant church. We have confidence in the testimony of Ellen White that he will not succeed, but a huge number of God's people will sadly be lost as a result of the acceptance of this unscriptural theology (Colin & Russell Standish, Deceptions of the New Theology, [Hartland Publications, 1989], p.28). It is further claimed that followers of the "New Theology" deny the Sanctuary Message and the relevance of the Spirit of Prophecy for the church today. Furthermore, the claim that the trend toward worldliness in the church is a result of the "New Theology". In evaluating these claims, we must first of all state that the term "New Theology" is misleading, since it implies that it is something new which the Adventist church did not hold prior to the 1950s when these perceived errors were supposed to have crept in.

The Nature of Christ Some people claim that the church changed its teaching on the nature of Christ in 1957, when the book Questions on Doctrine was published. While it is true that many of our books prior to 1957 taught that Jesus had a sinful human nature, this does not mean that Questions on Doctrine taught something new. The church in the 1950s, when challenged by non-Adventist theologians, studied the question of the nature of Christ and discovered that Scripture and E.G. White give a somewhat different answer to the one found in many of our books. On the one hand, Jesus' physical human nature was the nature of humanity after the fall (Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:16, 17). Ellen White said, "He took upon his sinless nature the fallen nature of man" (Medical Ministry, p.181). That is, Jesus had a deteriorated human nature, a nature that did not have all the strength, vitality and capacity that Adam had at his creation. On the other hand, Jesus' spiritual nature was the sinless nature of Adam before the fall, i.e., He had no evil propensities (with which we are born), no inclinations to sin (with which we are born) and no tendencies to sin (which we all have). Concerning our situation, Ellen G. White wrote: "The result of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man's experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist" (Education, p.29). "The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being. . . . Because of sin his posterity was born with inherited propensities of disobedience" (SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1128). Furthermore, she says, "In order to understand this matter aright, we must remember that our hearts are naturally depraved, and we are unable of ourselves to pursue a right course" (Counsels to Teachers, p.544). This is why all men, including infants, need a saviour. If Jesus had been just like all the other children, he would have needed a saviour too. In Luke 1:35 the angel speaking to Mary says, ". . . that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." And Jesus Himself in John 14:30 says, ". . . the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me." There was nothing in Jesus that responded in any way to Satan's temptations. He was "holy, harmless,

undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26). Our situation is completely different: Ministry of Healing, p.451 Sin is a tremendous evil. Through sin the whole human organism is deranged, the mind is perverted, the imagination is corrupt. Sin has degraded the faculties of the soul. Temptations from without find an answering chord within the heart, and the feet turn imperceptibly toward evil. Jesus did not have a perverted mind or a corrupt imagination. He did not have an answering chord within His heart which responded to evil. Ellen White in many places confirms this: Signs of the Times June 9, 1898: We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ. Dec. 9, 1897: The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Selected Messages, vol.1, p.253 Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement. SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1128 Be careful, exceedingly careful, as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing". It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be. Since all our theology must be based on Scripture, let us also note the following texts: 1. Peter 2:22, "Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth", and 1.

John 3:5, "And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin." Please note, Peter says "He committed no sin", but John goes further and declares that "there was no sin in Him", i.e., His nature was sinless. Therefore, He could be the perfect lamb which takes away the sins of the world (Jn. 1:29), a mediator who knew no sin, but was made to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2. Cor. 5:21). In the book Deceptions of the New Theology by C. and R. Standish it is claimed that: There are over 40 statements in which the issue of the human nature of Christ is specifically addressed by Sister White. Always she refers to the human nature of Christ as "fallen" or "sinful", thus confirming the words of Scripture. Never once does she use the term "unfallen" or "sinless" in relation to Christ's human nature (p.51). It seems that the authors missed her statement in Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898, where she says, "We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ." Repeatedly she speaks of His "sinless humanity", e.g.: "It was the purity and sinlessness of Christ's humanity that stirred up such satanic hatred" (Manuscript Release, vol.16, p.118), or, "Christ unites in His person the fullness and perfection of the Godhead and the fullness and perfection of sinless humanity" (Manuscript Release, vol.18, p.331). One will search in vain for expressions like "sinful nature of Christ", "fallen human nature of Christ", or "fallen nature of Christ" in the writings of Ellen White. What she does say repeatedly is that Christ took our "fallen" or "sinful" nature upon Himself (e.g., Medical Ministry, p.181; Manuscript 80, 1903). At times she quotes Romans 8:3, e.g., "Christ, the second Adam, came in `the likeness of sinful flesh'" (Manuscript 99, 1903). This is in harmony with the view that Christ had the sinful physical nature of Adam after the fall, but the sinless spiritual nature of Adam before the fall.

Again, the book Deceptions of the New Theology claims: To separate Christ's physical nature from His mental and moral nature would take us both to the Greek pagan concept of the distinction between an evil body and a good soul. No right thinking Seventh-day Adventist dare accept that dualistic view of man. It is a satanic deception. If Christ had a fallen physical nature, and He did, then His entire nature was fallen (p.53). However, this is not what we find in the writing of E.G. White. In Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897 she wrote, "The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin." She clearly distinguished between his physical and spiritual nature. To distinguish between these two aspects in man's nature only becomes wrong when we say that each can exist separately from each other, as is the case in the belief that the soul is immortal. After all, the Bible clearly states that man consists of "spirit, soul and body" (2. Thess. 5:23); and E.G. White wrote that "the nature of man is threefold" (Child Guidance, p.39), and that every follower of Christ should "dedicate all his powers of mind and soul and body to Him who has paid the ransom money for our souls" (Selected Messages, vol.2, p.124). When man sinned, all heaven was filled with sorrow; for through yielding to temptation, man became the enemy of God, a partaker of the Satanic nature. The image of God in which he had been created was marred and distorted. The character of man was out of harmony with the character of God; for through sin man became carnal, and the carnal heart is enmity against God, is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Mark ST, February 13, 1893). There is nothing new in the teaching of the "New Theology" concerning the nature of Christ. 100 years ago Ellen White taught what the "New Theology" is teaching today. The Nature of Man To understand the nature of sin is vital to our comprehension of the nature of man. What is sin? How sinful is the sinner? How deep is our sin? Are we basically good, created in the image of God, but because of temptations we transgress God's
6

law; or are we basically evil, with the image of God almost destroyed, and because of our evil nature we commit sin? Is sin just what we do, or is it what we are? The book Deceptions of the New Theology states that "Sin is wilful or negligent violation of God's law. The proponents of the new theology present sin as any departure from the infinite will of God and as any weakness or frailty of man" (p.77). What, in fact, does the Bible teach about sin? Generally, the Bible defines sin as an act. 1 John 3:4 says, "Sin is the transgression of the law", or "Sin is lawlessness" (NASB). But James 4:17 and a great number of texts in both the OT and the NT describe sin as a state, or tendency of the heart. Jeremiah depicts sin as a spiritual sickness which afflicts the heart. He says that "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (17:9). David in Psalm 51 expresses the thought that he was born a sinner, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Not that his mother did anything wrong in connection with his conception or birth - she was an honourable woman - but he recognises that he was born with a sinful nature. He desires to be washed and cleansed from sin (vss.2,7) and asks God to create in him a clean heart (vs.10). The same thought is expressed in Psalm 58:3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Israel is called "a transgressor from the womb" (Isa. 48:8). And "from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness (not a sound spot NEB) in it", says God in Isaiah 1:6. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus speaks of the inward disposition as evil (Mt. 5:21-22, 27-28). To the Pharisees He said, "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Mt. 12:34). And His disciples He told, "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" (Lk. 11:13). Evil actions and words stem from the evil thoughts of the heart, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Mt. 15:19). This sinfulness of the human heart, which we will call SIN, produces individual acts of transgressions which are sins. Thus by nature we are

children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), who are enticed to sin by their own lusts (Js. 4:1). This understanding is clearly spelt out by Ellen White when she says, "Sin is the inheritance of children" (Child Guidance, p.475), or "By nature the heart is evil" (Desire of Ages, p.172). Furthermore she says, "The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man's experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force, which unaided, he cannot resist" (Education, p.29). Thus we sin because we are born sinful. The only sinless human being in Scripture is Jesus. Of Him alone we read that he "knew no sin" (2. Cor. 5:21), that He was "separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26) and that "no guile was found in his mouth" (1. Pet. 2:22). Thus He could be the lamb "without blemish or spot" (1. Pet. 1:19). There is nothing new in the teaching of the "New Theology" concerning the nature of man. 100 years ago Ellen White taught what is taught by the "New Theology" today. The Atonement The book Deceptions of the New Theology claims: It is held by Evangelicals and "New Theology" supporters alike that the atonement was completed at the cross. In weakness we have often yielded on this point when, indeed, there are compelling biblical reasons to support the Seventh-day Adventist position. Using one isolated statement from Sister White against a large number that clearly state that the atonement of Jesus is completed in the heavenly sanctuary, many have made statements to the effect that "Christ is now ministering the benefits of His atonement in the heavenly sanctuary." But this is an incomplete representation of the doctrine of the atonement. Christ's sacrifice was, indeed, the central event in the atonement, but so also is His high priestly ministry. The atoning sacrifice of Christ is completed by the ministration of His precious blood in the heavenly sanctuary (pp.90,91). The issue of whether the atonement was completed at the cross or not, is largely a matter of definition. In theological circles the term "atonement" has assumed a technical meaning and is generally used to describe the redeeming effect of Christ's incarnation, sufferings, and death on the cross. In this sense E.G. White uses it in the following statements: Gospel Workers, p.325 The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around
8

which all other truths cluster. Review and Herald, Sept. 24, 1901 He planted the cross between heaven and earth, and when the Father beheld the sacrifice of his Son, He bowed before it in recognition of its perfection. "It is enough", he said, "the Atonement is complete." Signs of the Times, Aug. 16, 1899 No language could convey the rejoicing of heaven or God's expression of satisfaction and delight in His only begotten Son as He saw the completion of the atonement. Testimonies, vol.5, p.190 The ransom paid by Christ - the atonement on the cross - is ever before them. Thus, those who teach that a complete atonement was made on the cross view the term in its technical meaning as the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice of Christ offered for our salvation on Calvary. This is the meaning of Hebrews 9:12, "Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption", and 10:10, "By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." It is described as a "sacrifice of atonement" in Romans 3:25 (NIV) and as a "ransom" in 1. Timothy 2:6. However, the word atonement has also a wider connotation. In Scripture this is referred to as "reconciliation", which includes the effect the atonement has on His creation. Thus, Paul writes to the Colossians, "For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross" (1:19,20). And to the Corinthians he says, "We implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God" (2. Cor. 5:20). This wider meaning includes the application of the benefits of the atonement made on the cross to the individual sinner. This is provided for in the priestly ministry of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary.
9

In this sense E.G. White uses it in the following quotations: The great Sacrifice had been offered and had been accepted, and the Holy Spirit which descended on the day of Pentecost carried the minds of the disciples from the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly, where Jesus had entered by His own blood, to shed upon His disciples the benefits of His atonement (EW, p.260). Our Saviour is in the sanctuary pleading in our behalf. He is our interceding High Priest, making an atoning sacrifice for us, pleading in our behalf the efficacy of His blood (FE, p.370). Jesus is our great High Priest in heaven. And what is He doing? - He is making intercession and atonement for His people who believe in Him (TM, p.37). Thus, Ellen White can speak of a "final atonement" on the Day of Atonement (Great Controversy, p.485; Patriarchs and Prophets, pp.352,355). She used the word "atonement" both ways - in its technical sense as an all-sufficient, complete, once-for-all sacrifice on Calvary, and in its wider sense which includes the application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement Christ made on the cross. Again, there is nothing new in the teaching of the "New Theology" concerning the atonement. 100 years ago Ellen White taught what is taught by the "New Theology" today. Indeed, it is a distortion of the truth to declare such teaching as "New Theology". As far as the Sanctuary Message and the Spirit of Prophecy are concerned, the church at large has never wavered from its commitment to these truths. While there may well be individuals within the church who have doubts or reservations or an incomplete understanding concerning these truths, the church's position has not changed as is evidenced by chapters 17 and 23 in the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... THE SPIRIT OF CRITICISM - AN ISSUE OF CONCERN The spirit of criticism exhibited by some of the critical ministries is deplorable. Church members and critics alike do well to take note of the counsel given this church long ago: Testimonies, vol.5, p.294 The worst enemies we have are those who are trying to destroy the

10

influence of the watchman upon the walls of Zion. . . Be careful lest you be found aiding the enemy of God and man by spreading false reports and by criticism and decided opposition. Evangelism, p.634 Remember that he who takes the position of a criticiser, greatly weakens his own hands. God has not made it the duty of men and women to find fault with their fellow workers. Testimonies, vol.8, p.83 The time spent in criticising the motives and works of Christ's servants might be better spent in prayer. Often if those who find fault knew the truth in regard to those with whom they find fault, they would have an altogether different opinion of them. Evangelism, p.102 The Lord never blesses him who criticises and accuses his brethren, for this is SATAN'S work. CONCLUSION In this study we have seen that the claims by some of the critical independent ministries that the church in the 1950s changed its theology are not justified. What is called "New Theology" is really not new; it is thoroughly biblical. Moreover, it is the theology which Ellen White proclaimed 100 years ago. Critics of the church need to take a closer look at these teachings before claiming that they are evidence of apostasy in the church.

11