My colleagues call me a 'New Theologian'...: George Knight under scrutiny

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

6 December 2009

In his book, I used to be Perfect, George Knight indicates that his theory of salvation as presented in the book were viewed by some of his colleagues, professors at the Seminary of Andrews University, as a 'New Theology'. The term 'New Theology' is used by EGW to indicate "liberal theology".

We need to ask ourselves pertinent questions regarding Knight, despite teaching at the seminary, despite allocated the title, "church historian", despite speaking at the General Conference as keynote speaker (all titles that George Butler also had, and D. Canright, and J. Kellogg):

1. How does he come to grips with the biblical picture of perfection and blameless obedience required?

2. How does he explain the acting part of obedience necessary and required in the Old and New Testaments?

3. Does he indicate the biblical picture of a three point scenario for salvation: point a: God saved us through Christ's Righteousness; point b: through His Law and Grace in Law in the light of the covenant with us, He expects total 100% wholehearted obedience; point c: He makes us perfect by enabling grace walking before us to follow Him, what He does for us, in us?

4. Is his explanation of salvation citing scholars and supplementing their opinion with a biblical text to support or deny what they are saying?

5. How many biblical verses are used by him for his explanation?

6. Is he turning to the Bible for an answer or to his own experience?

7. Do we have biblical theology or sophistry?

8. If he is different than the other scholars working with him in the seminary, why is he different?

9. Hans K. La Rondelle is for example a trained Systematic Theologian utilizing the Bible as norm for all his answers to himself, and to other scholars. Does George Knight use his experience as norm to answer himself or these scholars or the Bible?

10. George Knight has a doctoral degree in Education from Housten University, Texas. How does that qualify him to be our spokesman and pointman for a proper doctrinal understanding of any subject of the Bible?

11. When he cites scholars, why does he use Marvin Moore who suggested that we do not give newcomers Ellen White's Great Controversy series but rather Signs of the Times (of which he is the editor) and which he believes should not include any doctrines or eschatology of any kind, or any similar Adventist doctrinal material?

12. When he cites Dietrich Bonhoefer as a source, does he realize that Dietrich Bonhoefer is a theistic-atheist who actually claims deism ("God left us here by ourselves and He is gone now, so we have to live as if He does not exist").

13. When he cites Emil Brunner, is he aware that Brunner is a relativist-existentialist who denounces the Bible as norm for our experience and life?

14. Is he saying in his book, just be a Son of God, don't focus on do. If he does, he may have the view of W. de Boer as opposed to G. Berkhouwer. De Boer's problem is that he is artificial in his dichotomy and secondly, that he overlooks the normativeness that is expected in the Old Testament, especially in Deuteronomy 6:4; 30:6 and 14; Jeremiah 32:39ff; Deuteronomy 8:6; Psalm 119:15; Leviticus 26:12-13; Ephesians 5:1; Exodus 20:8-11; Proverbs 4:1ff; Deuteronomy 13:4 and 3; Jeremiah 2:2. 

15. Are we finding in his book a biblical picture or only Knight's experience and if they conflict what are we to make of it?.

End item