CHAPTER 7 THE "NEW THEOLOGY" ATTACKS

The first basic error of the "new theology" stemmed from the old Augustinian doctrine of original sin. By ascribing imputed sin to all of Adam's descendants the assumption was made that every baby is born not only with accrued guilt, but with such an utterly perverse nature that it could never stop sinning short of Paradise. Thus the foundation was laid for rationalizing lawbreaking as a problem of irresponsible genes and hormones. Strike one against God's law!

This initial deviation made it necessary to introduce another distortion of truth. If all of Adam's descendants inherit his guilt, then Jesus would also become guilty as soon as He was born. That would never do, of course. In that case, He could save no one. He would be a sinner Himself. The Catholic church neatly took care of the problem by inventing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which excluded the Virgin Mary from partaking of Adam's imputed guilt. The "new theologians" simply accepted an ancient Protestant version of the Catholic position and declared that Jesus was actually born with Adam's unfallen nature instead of with Abraham's, David's or Mary's fallen nature.

Not only did this contradict many specific Bible statements, but it also left every one of Adam's children without any hope of overcoming their sins. It left the human race without one encouraging example of perfect obedience, except in an alien nature totally unknown to anyone who has been born since Adam sinned. If Jesus dared not face the temptations of fallen man, how could any mortal ever expect to gain the victory over those temptations? Such a doctrine added fuel to the satanic proposal that God's laws are too difficult to obey anyway. Strike two against the law!

How did these first two perversions tie in with further "new theology" attacks against the law? Strange as it may seem, even though they portrayed Jesus in a nature far removed from needy humanity, these professors of new light asserted that Christ was able to impute to sinners all the merits of His holy life, including His obedience, through His atoning death on the cross. That sounds like good theology, but look at it more carefully.

They call this imputed merit of Christ "righteousness by faith," but sanctification is specifically and deliberately excluded from this package of grace. It is maintained that obedience is entirely separated from the requirements of salvation, and acceptance of the imputed merits of justification alone is the only "works" required for entrance into God's kingdom. Thus conformity to God's law is assigned an optional role in the experience of salvation. Strike three against the law! 2

With the focus on imputed righteousness, the atoning death of Jesus on the cross came to be regarded as the finished work of redemption: He did everything for us, including a perfect obedience, and all is credited to us as we accept it by faith.

Did the death of Christ finish the work of atonement in behalf of the transgressor? No, it did not. It provided a perfect sacrifice. The offering of the unblemished Lamb was finished forever, but the final atonement was not completed until the blood had been sprinkled in the most holy place and the record of sins blotted out. The book of Hebrews proves beyond question that Jesus returned to the heavenly sanctuary to minister His own blood in fulfillment of the types carried out in the two apartments on earth. That work is going on today. What is involved in that work? Why was it needed? How did it excel the work which was carried out in the earthly sanctuary?

Chiefly in this respect; the earthly services could only provide for the forgiveness of sin, and never for the power to stop sinning. Those offerings of lambs and goats could not make anyone perfect. "For the law ... can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect." Hebrews 10:1.

On the other hand, Paul declared that the true High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary would remove sins and make people perfect. "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Hebrews 10:14.

Herein is revealed the grand necessity of the high priestly work of Jesus in heaven. It was required in order to cleanse sins from the record AND from the lives of the worshipers. The "new theology" asserts that the atonement was finished at the cross, and there is no present application of the yearly "most holy place" ministry to the work of the heavenly High Priest. This essentially denies both the need for any sanctifying of the saints, and the means of ministering that sanctification or perfection. By rejecting the two-apartment ministry of Christ for us, the "new theology" turns attention away from the exalted place where the law resides beneath the mercy seat of the ark. Small wonder, then, that it finds no need for sanctification in the experience of righteousness by faith. The law is minimized in the great scheme of salvation. Strike four against the law! 3

And what about the perfection provided to worshipers from the heavenly sanctuary? Most "new theologians" deny the doctrine of total victory over sin in the flesh. To them sin is synonymous with being born. It is pervasive in every fallen body and mind until translation eradicates it at the coming of Christ. With this view, it is easy to see why sanctification has been downplayed. If it is impossible to overcome all sin, then obviously God will accept that part of sin which it is not possible for man to conquer. But how much and which part is in that category? Is it left up to each person to decide which sins he cannot overcome in the strength of Christ? How could one be sure that he was not tolerating a sin that could be put away, with a little more faith and effort on his part?

The fact is that there is no intimation in the Bible that anyone should stop certain sins only, or diminish the amount of other sins he commits. Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more." He did not tell her to cut back on the amount of adultery she was committing. If I believe some sins are impossible to overcome, I certainly will not waste any time attempting to put them out of my life. Can't you see how dangerous it is to conclude that ANY sin cannot be overcome in the strength of the Lord? I become tolerant of that sin and deceive myself into believing that God also will accept it. And how easy it will be for my poor human nature to select any sin that I don't want to give up as one of those which cannot be overcome.

Does it seem logical to think that God can and will give me the victory over some sins-perhaps those that are not too deeply rooted-but that He cannot or is not willing to deliver me from the others? The entire concept is foreign to the Word of God. The only thing to be done with sin is to stop doing it, to put it away, to claim victory over it altogether. The blatant attitude that God's children must keep on sinning until Jesus comes is not only a denial of the Word, but a favorable vote for Satan's ancient lie.

Strike five against God's law!