A: I am, at least by Kirkpatrick's definition, a New Theologian. Yet, in terms of overcoming sin, I have yet to find anyone, Old Theologians included, who has a stronger stance against sin.

T: Then it appears your not a New Theologian by said definition.

Without classifying anyone pejoratively, ever, and with the motivation of wanting to learn not label, the above exchange seems to be the precise issue at the core of our apparent perplexity in the Christological debate:

Can the New Theology (NT) teach "overcoming sin" without the core doctrinal system of the Old True Theology?

Here's at least one reply as we try to comprehend the NT's doctrinal platform, upon which stand many of my dearest friends and classmates:

"In its early and middle days, it was relatively easy to spot the New Theology. Its proponents openly claimed that, this side of translation, real victory over sin was impossible. Such is no longer the case. With increasing frequency we hear advocates of the New Theology say that yes, you can have victory over sin by the understanding of salvation that they teach. But today we have come to the place where the “Can you have victory over sin?” test no longer suffices. The disease has advanced to another stage.

"The notion that we cannot have victory over sin is rightly identified as a New Theology trademark. But there are two aspects to consider when pondering the New Theology, and both are very important. One part is the experiential claim made for it. The other part is the doctrinal system that supposedly takes you to the experience made in that claim. The doctrinal system does take you to the experience of its theology. The problem in the case of the New Theology is, it is not an experience of complete overcoming.

"Today one hears the experiential claim made that by the doctrinal system underlying the New theology, we can completely overcome. The problem is, there is no way to get from the doctrinal system to the experiential claim. That is, when we accept certain notions about the nature of man, the nature of Christ, and the doctrine of sin, we cannot—within the doctrinal system encompassing those notions—actually get to the place where we overcome.

"Advocates of the New Theology today make their claim of total victory. They may not explicitly mention the doctrinal system that is supposed to take you there. It is implicit; it is implied.

"Some proponents of the New theology today will even be heard to make the experiential claim that one must overcome. The problem these have is that with the doctrinal understanding of the New Theology, you have a system that cannot get you to that place.

"Thus it is especially in regard to doctrinal system and not the experiential claim that we must today identify a teaching as being—or not being—the New Theology. Anyone can claim that by their system you can arrive at an experience of victory over sin. But what if they are teaching a merely human system in which the power of God is not present? Remember this prediction from a century ago (pay particular attention to the emphasized text): [1SM 204-205]."

William

Continued. . .

"[1SM 204-205 quoted] Here is classic prediction foretelling the arrival of the current error. Those who brought us the New Theology really thought they were bringing a great reformation to us. The new views concerning what Christ’s humanity was like and what sin has meant for human nature, brought changes to the baseline principles of truth God gave to this people. A hundred years of sound, unified Christology was discarded. Advocates of this New Theology have never urged anyone to sin.

"They have always taught that virtue was better than vice. But their plan was one not devised by God. It counters His truth that, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" (1 John 4:2, 3).

"And that, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Romans 8:3, 4).

"Advocates of the New theology say that our nature itself is condemned, while inspiration says that our condemnation comes from retrenching behind the selfish tendencies we are born with and making them a part of our character. These teach that virtue is better than vice, but at the end of the day, their talk of victory over sin is suspect, for their own theology does not make room for any such victory. Still always there is that fallen humanity, with but little offered in the way of definitions of what such teachers mean when they say they believe in “victory over sin.”

"One who teaches this kind of “victory over sin” was heard to say the following at the end of a recent sermon on John 15:3: “We’re like those disciples: stubborn hearted, failing, fumbling, and all kinds of pride still wrapped up in our hearts—[even so] we hear the sweet whisper of Jesus, ‘you are clean.’ “You are already clean through the word I have spoken to you.”

"But inspiration comments on the same: "These words mean more than bodily cleanliness. Christ is still speaking of the higher cleansing as illustrated by the lower. He who came from the bath was clean, but the sandaled feet soon became dusty, and again needed to be washed. So Peter and his brethren had been washed in the great fountain opened for sin and uncleanness. Christ acknowledged them as His. But temptation had led them into evil, and they still needed His cleansing grace. When Jesus girded Himself with a towel to wash the dust from their feet, He desired by that very act to wash the alienation, jealousy, and pride from their hearts. This was of far more consequence than the washing of their dusty feet. With the spirit they then had, not one of them was prepared for communion with Christ. Until brought into a state of humility and love, they were not prepared to partake of the paschal supper, or to share in the memorial service which Christ was about to institute. Their hearts must be cleansed. Pride and self-seeking create dissension and hatred, but all this Jesus washed away in washing their feet. A change of feeling was brought about. Looking upon them, Jesus could say, ‘Ye are clean.’ Now there was union of heart, love for one another. They had become humble and teachable. Except Judas, each was ready to concede to another the highest place. Now with subdued and grateful hearts they could receive Christ’s words" (The Desire of Ages, p. 646).

"Whereas the New Theology preacher claims that he teaches victory over sin, his statement said we were clean even while remaining with “all kinds of pride still wrapped up in our hearts.” But the true theology said that Jesus’ actions changed the hearts of the disciples. When Jesus said they were clean, they truly “had become” teachable, truly had had their hearts cleansed.

"The New Theology claims victory over sin but at the end of the day accepts defeat. The True Theology cleanses and washes away. Inspired writings showed the preacher to be wrong. Yet many who participated in that meeting were perhaps misled. It is a subtle day. Down the hallways of time we have arrived where all apparent claims must be tested."

More later.

William

hi william,

i skimmed through the paper you put up and checked the context of selected messages quoted. im not sure who came up with this "new theology" term which is claimed to be taught now but it doesnt seem to be based on what ellen white was referring to.

here she is talking about kelloggs pantheism in the living temple. so where is the pantheism in what is being called the new theology here?

i cant base my religion on what this person is saying here, mostly because i dont know what he/she is referring to. what im seeing is this person has come across something that doesnt seem to agree with what he/she has believed and so is calling it "new theology" and giving ellen white statements that have nothing to do with what he/she is saying to justify his/her conclusions.



i need to point out also that i would have to hear the whole sermon referred to here to see if i would come to the same conclusions. knowing who these people are and what they teach would also be helpful. then i could pray and search the scriptures for myself to see if that is so.

So far so good. In fact, very good.

He teaches victory in experience, not just in theory. He also teaches victory in heart and mind, not just in action.

And it is all founded on accepting what Jesus did for us, not what we do for Jesus. From what I've heard so far, he has the root and the fruit in the correct order. His session on Romans 6 is very good.

I'll have to read the transcript one of these days. If only I could read a book while driving.


And that's as it should be. Christ's humanity, whether pre or post, is secondary compared to the divinity He offers us.

i did a search of "sinful nature" as used by ellen white and it seems to me she used it to refer to our weakened nature. if anyone can see how she used it differently please point it out.

TQ, earlier I quoted a reply to Elle stating in effect that according to a Pfandl document ML Andreasen coined the term "New Theology" to describe the innovations of QOD.

William

thank you, but that didnt address my other points. most importantly that the selected messages quote had to do with kelloggs pantheism taking over....

Interesting conversations. J

This didn't seem to be well explained. What's the logic? (underlined part)

I certainly wouldn't want to argue that a postlapsarian is more likely to be less of a sinner than a prelapsarian.

Here's one: