WHAT IS NEW IN THE NEW THEOLOGY

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 hisLetters to the Churches which he wrote in response to the publication of the bookQuestions on Doctrine in 1957. In these letters Andreasen, who had been one of ourmost notable theologians for many years, attacked the denominational leadership forwhat he considered as selling Adventism down the river for evangelical recognition.What had happened?ADVENTIST - EVANGELICAL CONVERSATIONSIn 1955, Walter Martin, a Southern Baptist clergyman, contacted the GeneralConference with a number of questions. Martin, at that time, was a Ph.D. candidate atNew York University, researching for a dissertation on the subject "Non-ChristianReligions in the United States."In connection with his research, he was preparing a book against Seventh-dayAdventists and wanted to ascertain as accurately as possible what we really believedand taught. This contact led to a series of official conversations with a group ofevangelical leaders. The evangelicals involved were Walter R. Martin, George E.Cannon and, later, Donald G. Barnhouse. George Cannon was a professor of theologyand Donald Barnhouse was then a popular radio preacher in Philadelphia, pastor of alarge Presbyterian Church in the same city and editor in chief of Eternity Magazine.The Adventist leaders who participated in these conversations were LeRoyEdwin Froom, W.E. Read, T.E. Unruh and, later, Roy Allan Anderson, then editor ofMinistry.The purpose of these discussions was to provide Walter Martin with an accurateaccount of the distinctive beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists for his book. The group meta number of times in the offices of the General Conference throughout the period ofabout one year.M. L. Andreasen, who by then had been in retirement for some years, tookexception to these discussions. To him, they represented a capitulation - a sell-out - on1

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 whomAndreasen exchanged a series of strongly worded letters, especially during the year1957 (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 withLetters to the Churches. In letter 1 on page 13 he wrote, "Whoever accepts the newtheology must reject the Testimonies. There is no other choice." Under "New Theology"Andreasen understood primarily the teachings of Christ's sinless nature and thecompleted 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 thechurch 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 masterpieceof Satan, and that those who accept it have apostatised.The "New Theology" is a worldwide problem. It has been used by Satan inan endeavour to derail God's remnant church. We have confidence in thetestimony of Ellen White that he will not succeed, but a huge number ofGod's people will sadly be lost as a result of the acceptance of thisunscriptural theology (Colin & Russell Standish, Deceptions of the NewTheology, [Hartland Publications, 1989], p.28).It is further claimed that followers of the "New Theology" deny the SanctuaryMessage 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 "NewTheology".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 nothold prior to the 1950s when these perceived errors were supposed to have crept in.2

undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26).Our situation is completely different:Ministry of Healing, p.451Sin is a tremendous evil. Through sin the whole human organism isderanged, the mind is perverted, the imagination is corrupt. Sin hasdegraded the faculties of the soul. Temptations from without find ananswering chord within the heart, and the feet turn imperceptibly towardevil.Jesus did not have a perverted mind or a corrupt imagination. He did not have ananswering chord within His heart which responded to evil.Ellen White in many places confirms this:Signs of the TimesJune 9, 1898: We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfectsinlessness of the human nature of Christ.Dec. 9, 1897: The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and sufferingwas more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from everytaint of sin.Selected Messages, vol.1, p.253Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man'srepresentative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as Godcreated him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey everydivine requirement.SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1128Be careful, exceedingly careful, as to how you dwell upon thehuman nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man withthe propensities of sin.Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon humanminds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or thatHe in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like asman is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing". It is a mystery that is leftunexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as weare, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, andwill ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for ourchildren, but let every human being be warned from the ground of makingChrist 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 followingtexts: 1. Peter 2:22, "Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth", and 1.4

John 3:5, "And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Himthere is no sin."Please note, Peter says "He committed no sin", but John goes further anddeclares that "there was no sin in Him", i.e., His nature was sinless. Therefore, He couldbe the perfect lamb which takes away the sins of the world (Jn. 1:29), a mediator whoknew no sin, but was made to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness ofGod in Him (2. Cor. 5:21).that:In the book Deceptions of the New Theology by C. and R. Standish it is claimedThere are over 40 statements in which the issue of the human nature ofChrist is specifically addressed by Sister White. Always she refers to thehuman nature of Christ as "fallen" or "sinful", thus confirming the words ofScripture. Never once does she use the term "unfallen" or "sinless" inrelation 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 perfectsinlessness of the human nature of Christ." Repeatedly she speaks of His "sinlesshumanity", e.g.:"It was the purity and sinlessness of Christ's humanity that stirred up suchsatanic hatred" (Manuscript Release, vol.16, p.118), or,"Christ unites in His person the fullness and perfection of the Godhead and thefullness and perfection of sinless humanity" (Manuscript Release, vol.18, p.331).One will search in vain for expressions like "sinful nature of Christ", "fallen humannature of Christ", or "fallen nature of Christ" in the writings of Ellen White. What shedoes 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 `thelikeness of sinful flesh'" (Manuscript 99, 1903). This is in harmony with the view thatChrist had the sinful physical nature of Adam after the fall, but the sinless spiritualnature of Adam before the fall.5

Again, the book Deceptions of the New Theology claims:To separate Christ's physical nature from His mental and moral naturewould take us both to the Greek pagan concept of the distinction betweenan evil body and a good soul. No right thinking Seventh-day Adventistdare accept that dualistic view of man. It is a satanic deception. If Christhad 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 theTimes, Dec. 9, 1897 she wrote, "The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, andsuffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taintof sin." She clearly distinguished between his physical and spiritual nature.To distinguish between these two aspects in man's nature only becomes wrongwhen we say that each can exist separately from each other, as is the case in the beliefthat 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" (ChildGuidance, p.39), and that every follower of Christ should "dedicate all his powers ofmind and soul and body to Him who has paid the ransom money for oursouls" (Selected Messages, vol.2, p.124).When man sinned, all heaven was filled with sorrow; for through yielding totemptation, 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. Thecharacter of man was out of harmony with the character of God; for through sinman became carnal, and the carnal heart is enmity against God, is not subject tothe law of God, neither indeed can be. Mark ST, February 13, 1893).There is nothing new in the teaching of the "New Theology" concerning thenature of Christ. 100 years ago Ellen White taught what the "New Theology" is teachingtoday.The Nature of ManTo understand the nature of sin is vital to our comprehension of the nature ofman. What is sin? How sinful is the sinner? How deep is our sin? Are we basicallygood, created in the image of God, but because of temptations we transgress God's6

law; or are we basically evil, with the image of God almost destroyed, and because ofour 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 negligentviolation of God's law. The proponents of the new theology present sin as any departurefrom 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 asan act. 1 John 3:4 says, "Sin is the transgression of the law", or "Sin islawlessness" (NASB). But James 4:17 and a great number of texts in both the OT andthe NT describe sin as a state, or tendency of the heart. Jeremiah depicts sin as aspiritual sickness which afflicts the heart. He says that "the heart is deceitful above allthings and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (17:9).David in Psalm 51 expresses the thought that he was born a sinner, "Behold, Iwas shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Not that his mother didanything wrong in connection with his conception or birth - she was an honourablewoman - but he recognises that he was born with a sinful nature. He desires to bewashed 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 fromthe womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Israel is called "atransgressor from the womb" (Isa. 48:8). And "from the sole of the foot even unto thehead 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, beingevil, 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 toyour children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to thosewho ask Him!" (Lk. 11:13).Evil actions and words stem from the evil thoughts of the heart, "For out of theheart 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 are7

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 theinheritance of children" (Child Guidance, p.475), or "By nature the heart is evil" (Desireof Ages, p.172). Furthermore she says, "The result of the eating of the tree ofknowledge of good and evil is manifest in every man's experience. There is in his naturea 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 inScripture is Jesus. Of Him alone we read that he "knew no sin" (2. Cor. 5:21), that Hewas "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 thenature of man. 100 years ago Ellen White taught what is taught by the "New Theology"today.The AtonementThe book Deceptions of the New Theology claims:It is held by Evangelicals and "New Theology" supporters alike that theatonement was completed at the cross. In weakness we have oftenyielded on this point when, indeed, there are compelling biblical reasons tosupport the Seventh-day Adventist position. Using one isolated statementfrom Sister White against a large number that clearly state that theatonement of Jesus is completed in the heavenly sanctuary, many havemade statements to the effect that "Christ is now ministering the benefitsof His atonement in the heavenly sanctuary." But this is an incompleterepresentation of the doctrine of the atonement. Christ's sacrifice was,indeed, the central event in the atonement, but so also is His high priestlyministry. The atoning sacrifice of Christ is completed by the ministration ofHis precious blood in the heavenly sanctuary (pp.90,91).The issue of whether the atonement was completed at the cross or not, is largelya matter of definition. In theological circles the term "atonement" has assumed atechnical meaning and is generally used to describe the redeeming effect of Christ'sincarnation, sufferings, and death on the cross. In this sense E.G. White uses it in thefollowing statements:Gospel Workers, p.325The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around8

which all other truths cluster.Review and Herald, Sept. 24, 1901He planted the cross between heaven and earth, and when the Fatherbeheld the sacrifice of his Son, He bowed before it in recognition of itsperfection. "It is enough", he said, "the Atonement is complete."Signs of the Times, Aug. 16, 1899No language could convey the rejoicing of heaven or God's expression ofsatisfaction and delight in His only begotten Son as He saw thecompletion of the atonement.Testimonies, vol.5, p.190The ransom paid by Christ - the atonement on the cross - is ever beforethem.Thus, those who teach that a complete atonement was made on the cross viewthe term in its technical meaning as the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice of Christ offeredfor our salvation on Calvary.This is the meaning of Hebrews 9:12, "Not with the blood of goats and calves, butwith His own blood He entered the Most Holy place once for all, having obtained eternalredemption", and 10:10, "By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of thebody of Jesus Christ once for all." It is described as a "sacrifice of atonement" inRomans 3:25 (NIV) and as a "ransom" in 1. Timothy 2:6.However, the word atonement has also a wider connotation. In Scripture this isreferred to as "reconciliation", which includes the effect the atonement has on Hiscreation. Thus, Paul writes to the Colossians, "For it pleased the Father that in Him allthe fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whetherthings on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of Hiscross" (1:19,20).And to the Corinthians he says, "We implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciledto God" (2. Cor. 5:20). This wider meaning includes the application of the benefits of theatonement made on the cross to the individual sinner. This is provided for in the priestlyministry 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 theHoly Spirit which descended on the day of Pentecost carried the minds ofthe disciples from the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly, where Jesus hadentered by His own blood, to shed upon His disciples the benefits of Hisatonement (EW, p.260).Our Saviour is in the sanctuary pleading in our behalf. He is ourinterceding High Priest, making an atoning sacrifice for us, pleading in ourbehalf the efficacy of His blood (FE, p.370).Jesus is our great High Priest in heaven. And what is He doing? - He ismaking 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-allsacrifice on Calvary, and in its wider sense which includes the application of the benefitsof the sacrificial atonement Christ made on the cross.Again, there is nothing new in the teaching of the "New Theology" concerning theatonement. 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, thechurch at large has never wavered from its commitment to these truths. While theremay well be individuals within the church who have doubts or reservations or anincomplete understanding concerning these truths, the church's position has notchanged as is evidenced by chapters 17 and 23 in the book Seventh-day AdventistsBelieve ...THE SPIRIT OF CRITICISM - AN ISSUE OF CONCERNThe 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 churchlong ago:Testimonies, vol.5, p.294The worst enemies we have are those who are trying to destroy the10

influence of the watchman upon the walls of Zion. . . Be careful lest you befound aiding the enemy of God and man by spreading false reports and bycriticism and decided opposition.Evangelism, p.634Remember that he who takes the position of a criticiser, greatly weakenshis own hands. God has not made it the duty of men and women to findfault with their fellow workers.Testimonies, vol.8, p.83The time spent in criticising the motives and works of Christ's servantsmight be better spent in prayer. Often if those who find fault knew the truthin regard to those with whom they find fault, they would have an altogetherdifferent opinion of them.Evangelism, p.102The Lord never blesses him who criticises and accuses his brethren, forthis is SATAN'S work.CONCLUSIONIn this study we have seen that the claims by some of the critical independent ministriesthat the church in the 1950s changed its theology are not justified. What is called "NewTheology" is really not new; it is thoroughly biblical. Moreover, it is the theology whichEllen White proclaimed 100 years ago. Critics of the church need to take a closer lookat these teachings before claiming that they are evidence of apostasy in the church.11