2012-02-04 07:17Z

New (Or Simply False) Theology?

Reflections on Gerhard Pfandl, “What is New in the ‘New Theology’?”

Presenter: Kevin D. Paulson

Location: Internet

Delivery: 2010-01-17 04:18Z

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2010-01-17 04:18Z

Type: Article

URL: http://greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pauk-nosft.php

Dr. Gerhard Pfandl, an official of the General Conference Biblical Research Institute, has written a paper titled, “What is New in the ‘New Theology’?” In it he seeks to defend certain beliefs in the realm of Christology and salvation to which many Adventists must take exception.

Dr. Pfandl has made contributions to Seventh-day Adventist scholarship.¹ The lines which follow are not traced in the spirit of malice or unjust criticism. However, in the present writer’s view, the paper under discussion veers dangerously from the teachings of Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy.

Historical Issues

Much of Pfandl’s recounting of the history of these controversies in Adventism is accurate. His description of the discussions between Adventists and evangelicals during the 1950s, to which M.L. Andreasen raised such strong protest,² is generally correct. However, many will dispute the accuracy of the following observation by Pfandl:

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.³

First of all, Pfandl invokes the name of “the church” in a manner likely to mislead. Only one body in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is authorized to speak for “the church,” and that is the General Conference at a duly called global session. At no time, during the 1950s or since, has the General Conference in session ever endorsed the Christology of Questions on Doctrine (QOD). In fact, it doesn’t appear that at any time in Adventist history the issue of Christ’s human nature—pre- or post-Fall—has been adjudicated by the church’s highest governing body, or even governing bodies at lower levels.

Unfortunately, both sides in this controversy have invoked the church’s name in this manner, either to assign blame or—as in Pfandl’s case—to deny it. But the fact is that, regardless of the negative consequences believed by many to have resulted from the publishing of Questions on Doctrine, the controverted theology found in this book was the product of a small group of men, not the collective judgment of the world church.

Pfandl employs similar language in describing various opponents of QOD theology as “critics of the church.”⁴ We will later address Pfandl’s thoughts on the issue of criticism. But for the moment, it suffices to say that one disagreeing, on the basis of inspired writings, with the Christology of Questions on Doctrine, cannot fairly be accused of being “critical of the church.” The worldwide Seventh-day Adventist body has never endorsed the theology of Questions on Doctrine, nor has it ever rendered judgment on the continuing debate over Christ’s human nature in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Many also will question Pfandl’s claim that a deeper study of Scripture and the writings of Ellen White produced the pre-Fall Christology taught in Questions on Doctrine. Neither the evidence assembled by Pfandl in the paper under review (which we will examine), nor the evidence gathered by those of like mind in the post-QOD era, has offered any satisfactory means of harmonizing the inspired statements available on this subject. No explanation of inspired writings can be valid unless it accounts for all available evidence. Advocates of pre-Fall Christology in the modern church cannot do this, and the majority have either given up trying or have openly embraced a view of inspired authority which gives them the option of disagreeing with prophetic counsel should they so choose.⁵

Pfandl’s insistence that QOD taught nothing new regarding Christ’s human nature is debatable for several reasons. Leaving for the moment the issue of what Inspiration teaches, Pfandl understates the truth when declaring that “many of our books prior to 1957 taught that Jesus had a sinful human nature.”⁶ I would challenge Dr. Pfandl to produce a single book, or prominent Adventist thinker prior to 1950, who taught the pre-Fall view of Christ’s humanity. Noteworthy indeed is the fact that two researchers in modern times with opposite theologies—the Anglican scholar Geoffrey Paxton, author of The Shaking of Adventism, and the late Adventist scholar Ralph Larson, author of The Word Was Made Flesh—both concluded that pre-1950 Adventism (in terms of individual comments on the subject) was united in its support of post-Fall Christology.⁷ No Adventist scholar, to the present writer’s knowledge, has produced evidence disputing the validity of the above conclusion by these authors.

Indeed, it appears the first occurrence of the pre-Fall view of Christ’s humanity in Adventist history was in the notorious “holy flesh” movement of the early 1900s, whose theology—according to Stephen Haskell’s report to Ellen White—was noted for teaching “that Christ took Adam’s nature before he fell.”⁸ No other significant, clearly-defined espousal of this theology has been found in pre-1950 Adventist literature.

Pfandl’s reference to Roy Adams’ 1994 book The Nature of Christ⁹ is no help to his case, and for several reasons. Apart from shoddy scholarship and truncated history, Adams’ book reached a new low in civility by comparing advocates of post-Fall Christology and the perfectibility of Christian character to Jim Jones and David Koresh.¹⁰ Pfandl’s reference to Adams’ book is thus somewhat ironic, in view of Pfandl’s concern about his theological opponents allegedly manifesting the “spirit of criticism.”¹¹

Pfandl’s arguments against the accuracy of the “New Theology” label merit only passing comment, since no label of any kind is ever adequate. Pfandl notes the use of this term in the 1888 era,¹² the post-QOD controversy,¹³ and during the 1970s in Australia.¹⁴ Interestingly, it was also used by opponents of the Scripture-denying teachings of Episcopal Bishop James A. Pike during the 1960s.¹⁵ Neither labels nor their dubious value should distract us from the key issues. What matters in the present controversy is what the inspired writings teach—whether perceived to be old or new, nostalgic or avant-garde.

The Human Nature of Christ

Pfandl’s treatment of this key area of continuing controversy in the church is woefully inadequate, even from the perspective of his own theology. Unless inspired statements are examined which seem to move in the opposite direction, and their underlying harmony with the other statements demonstrated, one’s position in a discussion such as this is not helped. The careful student of both Scripture and Ellen White will note numerous vulnerabilities, unaddressed evidence, violation of context, even contradictions, in Pfandl’s use of inspired comments.

Pfandl’s reference to Luke 1:35, where Jesus is described as “that holy thing,”¹⁶ in no way proves His inherited human nature to be different from ours. Nothing in this verse or its context describes this condition as referring to His inherited humanity. Jesus was still the divine Son of God, even when taking human flesh. As such He was holy. And his human character, revealed to the world as He grew, would likewise be holy. A straightforward reading of this verse reveals nothing more than these simple facts. Furthermore, according to Luke 2:23, every “male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.”

Pfandl then quotes Jesus’ statement in John 14:30: “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me,” as proof that His human nature did not include tendencies to evil.¹⁷ Though a common argument in the current Adventist Christology debate, it must be read into the above verse in order to find it there. By itself, the passage says nothing that would imply an absence of an internal struggle with fleshly urges on Jesus’ part. Ellen White, when quoting this verse, defines it exclusively with reference to Jesus’ choice not to sin:

‘The prince of this world cometh,’ said Jesus, ‘and hath nothing in Me.’ John 14:30. There was in Him nothing that responded to Satan’s sophistry. He did not consent to sin. Not even by a thought did He yield to temptation. So it may be with us.¹⁸

Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation. Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert their power. But Christ declared of Himself, ‘The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me.’ John 14:30. Satan could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. He had kept His Father’s commandments, and there was no sin in Him that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble.¹⁹

Notice how, according to Ellen White, Satan’s finding nothing in Jesus which responded to temptation refers not to the absence of inherited fleshly desires in His human nature, but to the fact that He neither consented to nor cherished sinful desires. Choice is the decisive factor here, not our Lord’s inherited nature.

This becomes especially clear when Ellen White says, regarding the victory Christ gained by having “nothing in Him” that responded to Satan: “So it may be with us”.²⁰ “This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble.”²¹ In other words, we too can have Satan come to us and find nothing in us. And according to the same author, those achieving this experience by God’s grace will continue to struggle with fallen, fleshly desires till the coming of Jesus:

So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there will be no stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained.²²

Appetite and passion must be brought under the control of the Holy Spirit. There is no end to the warfare this side of eternity.²³

And yet, from the pen of the same author, it is clear this continuous struggle will—by the end of time—be one characterized by unbroken, uninterrupted victory:

Those who receive the seal of the living God and are protected in the time of trouble must reflect the image of Jesus fully. . . . I saw that none could share the ‘refreshing’ unless they obtain the victory over every besetment, over pride, selfishness, love of the world, and over every wrong word and action.²⁴

Are we seeking for His fullness, ever pressing toward the mark set before us—the perfection of His character? When the Lord’s people reach this mark, they will be sealed in their foreheads.²⁵

Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement. Then the latter rain will fall upon us, as the early rain fell upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost.²⁶

Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above, are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon the earth. . . . When this work shall have been accomplished, the followers of Christ will be ready for His appearing.²⁷

Let us remember that continuous struggle and continuous victory are not incompatible. The final months of the Second World War saw the heaviest and most severe fighting between the Allied and the Axis powers. But nevertheless, those final battles saw the achievement of uninterrupted victory by the Allied forces.

So it is clear, from Ellen White’s theology, that possessing an inherited fallen nature, with sinful tendencies and desires, doesn’t mean sinless obedience can’t be simultaneously experienced, nor that one is incapable—while possessing such a nature—of having the experience of which Christ declared when He said, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me” (John 14:30).

Pfandl quotes Paul’s statement in Hebrews 7:26, which declares Jesus to be “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” as evidence He couldn’t have inherited the same nature other humans inherit.²⁸ But again, Ellen White declares this exact condition to be attainable by fallen beings here on earth—beings who, as we have seen elsewhere in her writings.²⁹ still possess fallen human natures:

Cherish those things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and of good report; but put away whatever is unlike our Redeemer. . . . Every soul that gains eternal life must be like Christ, “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners” (Heb. 7:26).³⁰

Pfandl’s reference to 1 John 3:5, which declares of Christ: “In Him is no sin,”³¹ again fails to prove his point. This verse does not equate the absence of sin in Christ with the absence of inherited sinful desires. Why Pfandl quotes 1 Peter 2:22, which declares of Christ, “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,”³² is strange indeed. This verse is all about Christ committing no sin, not about Him failing to feel the desires of sin within His human nature.

Like other pre-Fall advocates, Pfandl uses the following Ellen White statement in support of the belief that Christ’s human nature was like that of the sinless Adam:

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.³³

Unfortunately, Pfandl misplaces his italics, emphasizing the phrase “as God created him” as the key to understanding what Christ came to prove—namely, that the sinless Adam in Eden had no excuse to sin. But when viewed in the light of the Ellen White consensus, it becomes clear that the key phrase in the above statement is not “as God created him,” but rather, “connected with the Father and the Son.” This connection God seeks to restore through conversion. The following statement makes this clear:

The law of God given from Sinai is a copy of the mind and will of the Infinite God. It is sacredly revered by the holy angels. Obedience to its requirements will perfect Christian character and restore man, through Christ, to his condition before the Fall.³⁴

The fact that Christ’s obedience proved fallen beings, who according to Inspiration still retain fallen natures, can render perfect obedience to the divine law, is clear from statements such as the following:

By His own obedience to the law, Christ testified to its immutable character, and proved that through His grace it could be perfectly obeyed by every son and daughter of Adam.³⁵

The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity and lived a sinless life, that men might have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they could not overcome. Christ came to make “us partakers of the divine nature,” and His life declares that humanity, combined with divinity, does not commit sin. The Saviour overcame to show man how he may overcome.³⁶

Pfandl plainly violates the context of the Ellen White statement he quotes which declares:

We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.³⁷

Pfandl seems to have a case for his argument when he quotes two authors who declare, “Never once does she (Ellen White) use the term ‘unfallen’ or ‘sinless’ in relation to Christ’s human nature,”³⁸ then quotes the above statement about the “perfect sinlessness” of Christ’s human nature.³⁹ But however vulnerable the statement from the above authors might be on its face, the context of the Ellen White statement Pfandl quotes does not permit Pfandl to use it as he has.

Here is what Ellen White says, just prior to the sentence quoted by Pfandl:

Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour’s head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.⁴⁰

Then she writes, “We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.”⁴¹

As we will see, Ellen White sometimes uses the term “nature” with reference to character choices, not always to tendencies inherited at birth. In the above statement it is clear her use of this term is with reference to character—the fact that Jesus never sinned.

Other statements quoted by Pfandl,⁴² referring to the sinlessness of Jesus’ humanity,⁴³ likewise fail to make the point he seeks to make. All agree that Christ’s humanity was sinless in terms of the choices He made. The issue under discussion is whether His sinless humanity included the absence of sinful desires in the fleshly nature He inherited. The statements quoted by Pfandl fail to sustain his belief that Christ’s humanity didn’t include these desires.

Pfandl stumbles onto a profound truth with his effort to distinguish Christ’s “physical” from his “spiritual” nature.⁴⁴ The problem is, he both misunderstands Ellen White’s distinction between lower and higher forces within man, and opens his case to contradiction when quoting the following Ellen White statement:

The word of God plainly warns us that unless we abstain from fleshly lusts, the physical nature will be brought into conflict with the spiritual nature.⁴⁵

Earlier in his paper, Pfandl defines Jesus’ “physical human nature” as being that of man after the fall, saying that “Jesus had a deteriorated human nature, a nature that did not have all the strength, vitality, and capacity that Adam had at his creation.”⁴⁶ Here, like other pre-Fall Christologists in Adventism, he seems to say that the only post-Fall humanity Jesus inherited was a physical frame susceptible to hunger, thirst, weariness, and similar benign weaknesses, but not a nature that included tendencies to sin.

Yet the above Ellen White statement, which Pfandl quotes, implies far more than Pfandl does about man’s physical nature. The above statement says that “unless we abstain from fleshly lusts, the physical nature will be brought into conflict with the spiritual nature.”⁴⁷ In other words, the “physical nature” here described is not merely weakened tissue, but a nature whose indulgence weakens the spiritual powers. If in fact Pfandl believes Christ inherited such a nature at birth, his position would be indistinguishable from that of post-Fall Christology. The following Ellen White statement regarding the lower passions, and where their seat is, comes to mind:

The lower passions have their seat in the body and work through it. The words ‘flesh’ or ‘fleshly’ or ‘carnal lusts’ embrace the lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts. . . . The corrupt thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul.⁴⁸

Notice not only how Ellen White says our lower passions have their “seat in the body;” she also says the words “flesh” and “fleshly” refer in inspired writings to the lower nature, and that this nature is incapable—by itself—of acting contrary to God’s will. This helps establish the premise that the mere possession of a fallen nature does not constitute sin.

Pfandl’s repeated insistence that Christ had an unfallen spiritual nature, like that of the sinless Adam in Eden,⁴⁹ and his reference twice to an Ellen White statement which teaches the same,⁵⁰ evoke no disagreement from post-Fall Christologists in Adventism. What must be clarified is that in Ellen White’s writings, the spiritual nature is distinct from the inherited fleshly nature, with its tendencies and desires. The following statements help us understand what Ellen White means when she speaks of man’s spiritual nature:

Professed followers of Christ are today eating and drinking with the drunken, while their names stand in honored church records. Intemperance benumbs the moral and spiritual powers and prepares the way for indulgence of the lower passions.⁵¹

The faculties of the mind, as the higher powers, are to rule the kingdom of the body. The natural appetites and passions are to be brought under the control of the conscience and the spiritual affections.⁵²

By such misuse of the marriage relation, the animal passions are strengthened; and as these grow stronger the moral and intellectual faculties become weaker. The spiritual is overborne by the sensual.⁵³

The indulgence of natural appetites and passions has a controlling influence upon the nerves of the brain. The animal organs are strengthened, while the moral and spiritual are depressed.⁵⁴

In other words, Ellen White’s reference to our spiritual nature is in fact a description of the will and character, where choices are made. Like Scripture itself (see Matthew 26:41; 1 Corinthians 9:27), Ellen White’s writings distinguish the higher nature (the will and character) from natural, lower inclinations. In Ellen White’s words:

The will is not the taste or the inclination, but it is the deciding power.⁵⁵

Once this distinction is understood, the various Ellen White statements on Jesus having (or not having) sinful passions and propensities become understandable and harmonious with statements which seem to say the opposite. The famous Baker letter, to which Pfandl prominently refers,⁵⁶ is perhaps the best known Ellen White passage used to support pre-Fall Christology. But once viewed in the light of the inspired consensus, it cannot be seen as gravitating in that direction. All are urged to consult a paper by the present writer, titled, “The Lower and Higher Natures: The Key to Resolving the Adventist Christology Debate,” which explains this issue in greater depth.⁵⁷

The Nature of Man

Pfandl quotes a number of Bible verses to support the belief that the fallen nature with which all post-Fall humans are born is synonymous with sin itself,⁵⁸ and that if Jesus had been born with such a nature, He would Himself have needed a Saviour.⁵⁹ But again, Pfandl’s use of inspired statements—both from Scripture and Ellen White—reads more into these statements than a straightforward reading requires, or that is permitted by the biblical consensus.

Pfandl’s reference to modern translations of 1 John 3:4, which render the verse as saying, “Sin is lawlessness,”⁶⁰ says nothing about this state of lawlessness being an involuntary one received at birth. Nor is this meaning required by any of the other verses Pfandl cites, which speak both of the desperate and complete nature of human depravity (Isaiah 1:6; Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew 12:34; 15:19; Luke 11:13).⁶¹ Merely affirming, for example, that “the heart is deceived above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9), doesn’t require us to conclude we are born this way. All this and the other verses say is that the degeneracy caused by sin to humanity is pervasive and universal.

Like many others, Pfandl uses David’s statement, “I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5), as proof that David (and by implication, the rest of us) are born sinners.⁶² But David doesn’t say, “As a sinner did my mother conceive me.” He says, “In sin did my mother conceive me.” Read in context this verse simply says David’s mother was a sinner, and so was he—that from the moment he entered this world he was surrounded and beleaguered by sin. It doesn’t say sin was forced on him by the mere possession of a fallen nature. Pfandl opens himself to serious misunderstanding when he claims that by this verse David “recognizes that he was born with a sinful nature,”⁶³ then writes:

He (David) desires to be washed and cleansed from sin (verses 2, 7) and asks God to create in him a clean heart (verse 10).⁶⁴

If in fact the condition described in verse 5 is the sinful nature with which all are born, does Pfandl believe the new heart and right spirit for which David pleads in verse 10 represent the eradication of this nature? If so, when does this eradication take place? How would Pfandl harmonize his understanding with the inspired statements noted earlier, which declare the sinful nature to be present in believers till Christ returns?⁶⁵ If he holds verse 10 to anticipate the removal of the problem described in verse 5, these questions need to be answered.

Pfandl’s use of Psalm 58:3 (“The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies”) and Isaiah 48:8, which speaks of apostate Israel being “a transgressor from the womb,”⁶⁶ likewise fail to prove his point. Psalm 58:3 specifically describes the wicked as being in focus, not all humanity, and Isaiah 48 is describing God’s people while in a state of major spiritual rebellion. Ellen White is clear that the children of wicked parents begin to go wrong in the first months of babyhood due to their parents’ neglect and evil doings.⁶⁷ Such problems can be forestalled by the intervention of godly parents, through whose prayers—according to the same author—children may be molded by the Holy Spirit from their earliest moments.⁶⁸

Pfandl’s quote from Millard Erickson regarding Paul’s description of the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21), their roots in sinful passion (Romans 7:5), and the helplessness of the sinner against these deeds and desires (Romans 7:23; Galatians 5:17),⁶⁹ again fails to demonstrate Bible support for the theory that merely possessing a fallen nature makes one a condemned sinner, thus presumably excluding Jesus from taking such a nature. None of these verses imply guilt or condemnation as man’s lot merely by being born. They simply teach the helplessness of the sinner against these desires without the converting, conquering grace of the Spirit. Paul is clear in the selfsame context of these verses (Romans 8:1-4, 13; Galatians 5:16, 24), and elsewhere (1 Corinthians 9:27; 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5), that the Spirit’s power in human lives is capable of subduing these evil forces and releasing men and women from bondage to them.

Pfandl quotes 2 Corinthians 5:21, which says Jesus “knew no sin,” as evidence he couldn’t have taken man’s fallen nature.⁷⁰ But when taken both in context and in light of the Biblical consensus, this verse simply means Christ experienced no sin. He never chose to sin, nor consented to its urges. The mere presence within His fleshly nature of such urges does not, according to the Bible, bring guilt or condemnation (see James 1:14, 15).

Pfandl also quotes several Ellen White statements which, in his view, prove that babies are born sinners. One of these states, “The inheritance of children is that of sin;”⁷¹ another states, “By nature the heart is evil.”⁷² Still another observes:

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.⁷³

The last of these statements is the easiest to explain. A bent to evil is nowhere defined by the inspired pen as synonymous with evil itself. Consider the following statement:

There are thoughts and feelings suggested and aroused by Satan that annoy even the best of men; but if they are not cherished, if they are repulsed as hateful, the soul is not contaminated with guilt and no other is defiled by their influence.⁷⁴

Did Jesus have to contend with the arousal of such passions and desires? Consider the following:

Though He (Christ) had all the strength of passion of humanity, never did He yield to temptation to do one single act which was not pure and elevating and ennobling.⁷⁵

The words of Christ encourage parents to bring their little ones to Jesus. They may be wayward, and possess passions like those of humanity, but this should not deter us from bringing them to Christ. He blessed children that were possessed of passions like His own.⁷⁶

His (the Christian’s) strongest temptations will come from within, for he must battle against the inclinations of the natural heart. The Lord knows our weaknesses.⁷⁷

How, according to the same writer, does Jesus know our weaknesses? How does He know where the strength of our temptations lies?

He knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity, what are our wants, and where lies the strength of our temptations, for He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.⁷⁸

Consider also the following statement:

Some realize their great weakness and sin, and become discouraged. Satan casts his dark shadow between them and the Lord Jesus, their atoning sacrifice. They say, It is useless for me to pray. My prayers are so mingled with evil thoughts that the Lord will not hear them. These suggestions are from Satan. In His humanity Christ met and resisted this temptation, and He knows how to succor those who are thus tempted.⁷⁹

On the basis of the above passages, we must conclude that the “bent to evil” Ellen White describes as existing in human nature since the Fall, was inherited and resisted by our Lord Himself. And this is our assurance that we, too, may resist these fallen urges and be found at last among the overcomers (Romans 8:3; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Revelation 3:21; 14:5).

Ellen White’s statement that “the inheritance of children is that of sin,”⁸⁰ doesn’t say the inheritance of children is sin itself. Notice it says their inheritance is that “of sin.” In other words, produced by sin. The following Ellen White statement helps us better understand this principle:

It is a sin to be sick, for all sickness is the result of transgression. Many are suffering in consequence of the transgression of their parents. They cannot be censured for their parents’ sin; but it is nevertheless their duty to ascertain wherein their parents violated the laws of their being, which has entailed upon their offspring so miserable an inheritance; and wherein their parents’ habits were wrong, they should change their course, and place themselves by correct habits in a better relation to health.⁸¹

Pfandl’s use of Ellen White’s statement, “By nature the heart is evil,”⁸² reminds us of his use of Psalm 51 and the questions his position raises regarding the scope of the new birth experience. This statement of Ellen White is in the context of Jesus’ discourse to Nicodemus on being born again.⁸³ Following the above statement, Ellen White declares:

The fountain of the heart must be purified before the stream can become pure. He who is trying to reach heaven by his own works in keeping the law, is attempting an impossibility. There is no safety for one who has merely a legal religion, a form of godliness. The Christian’s life is not a modification or improvement of the old, but a transformation of nature. There is a death to self and sin, and a new life altogether. This change can be brought about only by the effectual working of the Holy Spirit.⁸⁴

In other words, the evil heart described earlier is purified by the new birth, which brings about the death to self described in the above passage. Ellen White is clear elsewhere this death to self takes place in our present life, not at the coming of Jesus:

In the life of the true Christian there is nothing of self. Self is dead. There was no selfishness in the life that Christ lived while on this earth. Bearing our nature, He lived a life wholly devoted to the service of others.⁸⁵

When the Saviour abides in the heart the work bears the impress of the divine touch. Self does not appear. Christ is revealed as the One altogether lovely.⁸⁶

In word and deed Christ’s followers are to be pure and true. In this world—a world of iniquity and corruption—Christians are to reveal the attributes of Christ. All they say and do is to be free from selfishness.⁸⁷

Yet we remember those statements where she speaks of our sinful nature persisting till the second advent, necessitating the struggle of sanctification till that time.⁸⁸ Putting all these statements together, it becomes clear the evil heart described in the statement Pfandl quotes is not the same as the inherited fleshly nature. It is, rather, the choice of the heart to accede to the demands of that nature. The heart, or will, can indeed be cleansed in this life. The lower, fleshly nature cannot be till the coming of Christ, which is why—during the Holy Flesh movement—Ellen White made the following statement:

All may now obtain holy hearts, but it is not correct to claim in this life to have holy flesh.⁸⁹

Looking at the inspired consensus, it becomes clear Pfandl’s claims regarding the nature of sin and the humanity of Christ cannot be sustained. His statement that had Christ inherited a fallen nature He would have Himself needed a Saviour,⁹⁰ and could not therefore have been “the lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19),⁹¹ is without support. The Bible is clear guilt is not incurred merely by inheriting fleshly desires, but by yielding to them (see Ezekiel 18:20; James 1:14, 15).

Readers are encouraged to consult another paper by the present writer titled, “Sinners by Choice,” which addresses at length the inspired evidence regarding the nature of human sin.⁹²

The Atonement

On this point Pfandl is generally correct, though he seems not to understand the extent to which the “finished atonement” theology in modern Adventism has distorted the meaning of Scripture and called into question key Adventist doctrines.

When he observes, “The issue of whether the atonement was completed at the cross or not, is largely a matter of definition,”⁹³ Pfandl is right. Ellen White has written, regarding inspired language: “Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea.”⁹⁴ Pfandl rightly notes a number of Ellen White statements which speak of the cross effecting a complete atonement.⁹⁵ In these passages the word atonement is a synonym for sacrifice. Jesus’ sacrifice was indeed complete on Calvary. No more sacrifices need to be offered.

However, as Pfandl correctly states, the concept of atonement has a wider meaning in Scripture than merely sacrifice. The New Testament verses he quotes make this point clear (Colossians 1:19, 20; 2 Corinthians 5:20).⁹⁶ The Old Testament establishes the premise that for atonement to take place, not only must a sacrifice be offered for sin, but the blood shed by such sacrifices must be mediated by a priest (see Leviticus 4, 5). Only when this happens is forgiveness and reconciliation (atonement) possible (see Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10), which is why the New Testament is clear that the mediation of Christ as our heavenly Advocate is necessary in order for forgiveness to take place (1 John 2:1).

On this basis, as Pfandl rightly observes, Ellen White can speak of atonement as taking place in the heavenly sanctuary as well as on the cross.⁹⁷ According to the Bible, of course, the process of atonement also includes the exile and death of the scapegoat on the annual Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:10). This means that in the antitype, only when the antitypical scapegoat (Satan) is finally destroyed does final reconciliation—at-one-ment—take place between God and His once-estranged creatures. Only when the originator of evil dies, with all his intransigent followers, can Eden lost finally become Eden restored.

Pfandl, however, is quite wrong when he states as follows:

There is nothing new in the teaching of the so-called ‘New Theology’ concerning the atonement. 100 years ago Ellen White taught what is taught by the ‘New Theology’ today.⁹⁸

But the “finished atonement,” “finished work of Christ” theology taught by modern Adventist New Theology advocates is not at all what Ellen White meant when she spoke of a finished atonement, or sacrifice, on the cross. The completed sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary has never been an issue in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (I’ve haven’t seen an Adventist sacrificing a lamb yet!) Rather, the issue that has helped to divide modern Adventism is the New Theology contention that all human sin was forgiven when Jesus died on the cross, that all have been justified (and presumably saved) as a result of this event, thus requiring only simple belief to make this legal salvation effective. In the words of Desmond and Gillian Ford some years ago:

Because of Christ’s perfect life of obedience and atoning death, the whole human race has been legally declared righteous.⁹⁹

Such a view of the atonement process, whether at the cross or elsewhere, denies plain Biblical statements that for forgiveness (justification) to occur for anyone, sin must be confessed and forsaken (2 Chronicles 7:14; Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 55:7; Romans 2:13).

The exclusive association of the cross with justification, and consequent belief that being saved entirely by Jesus’ blood means to be saved exclusively by justification, leads in the opposite direction from Biblical teaching. Scripture is not only clear that the blood of Christ accomplishes our sanctification as well as our justification (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 13:12, 20, 21); it is equally clear this sanctifying, regenerating work is very much a part of the Christian’s salvation:

God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5).

The justification-alone theory of salvation both denies the truth of the above Scriptures, and makes the perfecting of Christian character unnecessary, in addition to its alleged impossibility due to inborn sin. The Bible, by contrast, clearly upholds the possibility—indeed, the necessity—of sinless obedience in this life (Psalm 119:1-3, 11; Zephaniah 3:13; John 8:11; Romans 6:14; 8:4; 1 Corinthians 15:34; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Ephesians 5:27; Philippians 4:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10-14; 1 John 1:7, 9; 2:1; 3:2, 3,7; Jude 24; Revelation 14:5).

The popular “finished atonement” theology in contemporary Adventism includes both justification-alone salvation and the imperfectability of Christian character. Whether advocates of these teachings wish so or not, such theology in its inevitable logic, marginalizes holiness. (If practical godliness neither saves the believer nor can be perfect in this life, why upset the saints and disturb unity by insisting on strict adherence to standards?) A recent book by a now-former Adventist pastor clearly demonstrates how justification-alone, perfection-denying theology leads logically and naturally to reduced clarity regarding lifestyle and worship issues in the church.¹⁰⁰

Understandably, these premises pose serious problems for both the classic Adventist sanctuary doctrine and the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy. While Pfandl is correct that “the church at large has never wavered from its commitment to these truths,”¹⁰¹ it remains true that many within the church have in fact wavered, based on the premises of the New Theology which Pfandl’s paper either embraces or fails to grasp. Not all, to be sure, who embrace the salvation and Christology tenets of the New Theology follow them to their logical conclusion. But those former and current Adventists who doubt or reject the 1844/investigative judgment message, and who deny the authority of Ellen White in doctrinal matters, nearly all—almost without exception—base their doubts and rejection, largely if not exclusively, on the gospel according to the New Theology.

I challenge Pfandl to produce any significant exceptions to this rule.

The Spirit of Criticism

Pfandl lends his voice to the effort of certain ones to tar opponents of the New Theology in Adventism with such labels as “critical ministries” and “critical independent ministries,”¹⁰² thus conveying the notion that those disagreeing with his views are guilty of both a negative spirit and resistance to church authority. None will deny, of course, that certain advocates of many needed reforms within the church can at times indulge needless severity and harshness, both in word and deed. Inordinate contempt for the official church has also, at times, been the unfortunate companion of such efforts. But this doesn’t mean the concerns of such persons aren’t valid or their basic convictions wrong.

One might meet a Sabbath-keeper who molests his children, engages in dishonest business dealings, or harbors racial prejudice. But this doesn’t mean the seventh day isn’t still the Sabbath of the Lord our God. If a practicing homosexual is beaten and killed by Christians claiming to be zealous for God, such an act is vile and deplorable and every bit as sinful as the homosexual act itself. But such distorted zeal on the part of so-called Christians doesn’t change what the Bible teaches on this particular subject.

Pfandl quotes a number of Ellen White statements deploring the spirit of criticism in the church.¹⁰³ These are perfectly good statements. But because he doesn’t direct his readers to the inspired distinction between unjust criticism and the necessary reproof of wrong, he is likely to leave his readers in some confusion.

Isaiah was not indulging the “spirit of criticism” when he declared, “Cry aloud, spare not; lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins” (Isaiah 58:1). Nor was Ellen White indulging or encouraging this spirit when she wrote:

Today there is need of the voice of stern rebuke, for grievous sins have separated the people from God.¹⁰⁴

Those who have too little courage to reprove wrong, or who through indolence or lack of interest make no earnest effort to purify the family or the church of God, are held accountable for the evil that may result from their neglect of duty. We are just as responsible for evils that we might have checked in others by exercise of parental or pastoral authority as if the acts had been our own.¹⁰⁵

The servant of God should never allow his own spirit to be mingled with the reproof which he is required to give; but he is under the most solemn obligation to present the Word of God, without fear or favor. He must call sin by its right name. Those who by their carelessness or indifference permit God’s name to be dishonored by His professed people, are numbered with the transgressor—registered in the record of heaven as partakers in their evil deeds.¹⁰⁶

Ellen White also draws the following, very important distinction:

To speak the word of God with faithfulness is a work of the greatest importance. But this is an entirely different work from continually censuring, thinking evil, and drawing apart from one another. Judging and reproving are two different things. God has laid upon His servants the work of reproving in love those who err, but He has forbidden and denounced the thoughtless judging so common among professed believers in the truth.¹⁰⁷

My hunch is that Pfandl would not quarrel with me on this point. Sadly, however, his injection of the undefined “criticism” label into the present discussion serves only to confuse the issue. The mistaken assumption is encouraged that those holding to the salvation and Christology views with which he differs are primarily persons of a harsh spirit, lacking both in Christian love and in loyalty to the body of Christ. Popular as this perception continues to be in certain contemporary Adventist circles, it is still false.

Conclusion: New (Or Simply False) Theology?

In short, Pfandl’s paper is a deeply flawed contribution to Adventism’s current discussions. It ignores the contrast between the gospel called the New Theology and the consensus of the church in previous times, as well as the Biblical/Spirit of Prophecy teachings on the issues he addresses. Whether one calls the New Theology by one or another label really doesn’t matter, so long as we call it false, on the basis of God’s Word. GCO

Endnotes

See Gerhard Pfandl, “The Year-Day Principle,” Biblical Research Institute Reflections, April 2007, pp. 1-3; “Time Prophecies in Daniel 12,” “The Trinity in Scripture,” available from the Biblical Research Institute Web site: www.biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org. Dr. Pfandl is also editor of the forthcoming book Interpreting Scripture: Bible Questions and Answers, soon to be published by the General Conference Biblical Research Institute.
_____“What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 1.
Ibid, p. 2.
Ibid, p. 8.
See Graeme Bradford, More Than a Prophet (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 2006), pp. 77-84, 215-216, 269; Keavin Hayden, Lifestyles of the Remnant (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 2001), p. 70; George R. Knight, Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle Over Righteousness by Faith (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1989), p. 107; Martin Weber, Adventist Hot Potatoes (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1991), pp. 100-113; Who’s Got the Truth? Making sense out of five different Adventist Gospels (Silver Spring, MD: Home Study International Press, 1994), pp. 187-211.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 2.
See Geoffrey J. Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism (Wilmington, DE: Zenith Publishing Co, 1977), p. 88; Ralph Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh: One Hundred Years of Seventh-day Adventist Christology, 1852-1952 (Cherry Valley, CA: The Cherrystone Press, 1986), pp. 33-218.
Stephen Haskell, letter to Ellen White, Sept. 25, 1900, quoted by Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh, p. 126.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?” p. 1.
Roy Adams, The Nature of Christ: Help for a church divided over perfection (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1994), pp. 110, 155.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” pp. 7, 8.
Ibid, p. 2.
Ibid, p. 1.
Ibid, pp. 1, 2.
James A. Pike, If This Be Heresy (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), p. 73.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 3.
Ibid.
Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 123.
_____The Great Controversy, p. 623.
_____The Desire of Ages, p. 123.
_____The Great Controversy, p. 623.
_____Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560, 561.
_____Counsels to Teachers, p. 20.
_____Early Writings, p. 71.
_____Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1118.
_____Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 214.
_____The Great Controversy, p. 425.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 3.
White, Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560, 561; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20.
_____In Heavenly Places, p. 160.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 3.
Ibid, pp. 3, 6.
White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 253 (italics Pfandl’s).
_____Our High Calling, p. 138.
_____Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 49.
_____Ministry of Healing, pp. 180, 181.
_____Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 256.
Colin D. & Russell R. Standish, Deceptions of the New Theology (Rapidan, VA: Hartland Publications, 1989), p. 4.
White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 256.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” pp. 3-4.
White, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128-1129; Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897; Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 118; vol. 18, p. 331.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” pp. 2, 3.
White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 382, quoted by Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 4.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 2.
White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 382.
_____The Adventist Home, pp. 127, 128.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” pp. 3, 4.
White, Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897, quoted by Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” pp. 3, 4.
White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 101.
_____Ministry of Healing, p. 399.
_____Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, p. 130.
_____Signs of the Times, Aug. 11, 1887.
_____Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 513.
_____Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129, quoted by Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 3.
Kevin D. Paulson, “The Lower and Higher Natures: The Key to Resolving the Adventist Christology Debate,” www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-lhnature.php3
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 5.
Ibid, p. 3.
Ibid, p. 5.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
White, Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560, 561; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 5.
White, Child Guidance, p. 289; Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 150; Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 117, 118.
_____The Desire of Ages, p. 512.
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, M: Baker Book House, 1983), p. 627, quoted by Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” pp. 5, 6.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 6.
White, Child Guidance, p. 475, quoted by Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 6.
_____The Desire of Ages, p. 172, quoted by Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 6.
_____Education, p. 29, quoted by Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 6.
_____That I May Know Him, p. 140.
_____In Heavenly Places, p. 155.
_____Signs of the Times, April 9, 1896.
_____Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, Dec. 1, 1892.
_____The Desire of Ages, p. 329.
_____In Heavenly Places, p. 78.
_____Child Guidance, p. 475.
_____Counsels on Health, p. 37.
_____The Desire of Ages, p. 172.
Ibid, pp. 166-177.
Ibid, p. 172.
_____In Heavenly Places, p. 166.
Ibid, p. 237.
_____Review and Herald, May 30, 1907.
_____Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560, 561; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20.
_____Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 32.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 3.
Ibid, p. 6.
Paulson, “Sinners by Choice,” www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-sinners.php3
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 6.
White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 20.
_____Gospel Workers, p. 315; Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 190; Review and Herald, Sept. 24, 1901; Signs of the Times, Aug. 16, 1899.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 7.
White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357; The Great Controversy, p. 480; Testimonies to Ministers, p. 37, quoted by Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 7.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 7.
Desmond and Gillian Ford, The Human Nature of Christ in Salvation, p. 18.
Keavin Hayden, Lifestyles of the Remnant ( Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 2001), pp. 16-24.
Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” p. 7.
Ibid, pp. 7, 8.
White, Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 294, 295; vol. 8, p. 83; Evangelism, pp. 102, 634, quoted by Pfandl, “What is New in the New Theology?,” pp. 7, 8.
_____Prophets and Kings, p. 140.
_____Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 578.
_____Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 996.
_____The Upward Look, p. 366.

© 2010 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Contributing author Pastor Kevin D. Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. His published work has appeared in numerous venues. Kevin has also since 2002 served as the speaker for “Know Your Bible,” a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.