Paul's Passing Thoughts

Before I move on to part 4, I wanted to interject the following exchange that took place between one of Chad Bresson’s readers and himself regarding the article I mention in both part one and two, “The Word of God is a Person.” It should help make some of my points, and thanks to the reader who sent it to me yesterday. I find Bresson’s NCT representation of God’s word chilling, and just plain creepy. My third party comments are in brackets.

Reader:

Psalm 119 – nearly every verse – is that referring to Christ and not the word of God (which was called law, oracles, etc.) at that time.

Heb. 4:12 – Is this also referring to Christ and not the words of the Bible?

Bresson:

The rich typology that organically connects redemptive history says it’s “both/and”, not “either/or”. The new was anticipated and foreshadowed in the old.

[“Rich typology” is an eisegesis hermeneutic. Bresson uses this hermeneutic to then say Psalms isn’t really saying what it is saying. Hence, the grave danger NCT poses to the spiritual welfare of those seeking truth.]

John 1:1 tells us that Christ incarnated the very Word of God. Thus, the text… the Word… is both witness to and emanates from THE WORD.

I should add that John 1:1 is also telling us that Christ *was* the very Word of God from the beginning. So… to draw a distinction between text and Person is a false dichotomy.

[This makes what Jesus commanded a description of who He is rather than what He expects of us. This is most certainly a road to spiritual destruction. Not only that, God Himself makes such a dichotomy in Matthew 4:4 and Psalm 138:2]

Reader:

Yes, but the article from which you quoted declared the Bible is NOT the Word of God nor is it alive. Do you believe this?

Bresson:

I’m not sure I see any reason for a “yes, but…” here. 🙂

Could you show me where he says the Bible isn’t the Word of God? Could you show me where he says the Word of God isn’t alive?

I think you’ve missed the whole point of his comment.

His point is that the Word of God isn’t the Word of God on its own. It is only the Word of God because Christ is THE WORD of God. The Word of God has no life in and of itself apart from Christ for it is Christ The Life who is THE WORD… it is Christ who invests the Word with life.

The Word has no meaning outside of THE WORD, yet we tend to preach from it and teach it as if it were so… and we do this when we proof text with no reference to the biblical and Christological storyline. When we treat the Bible as a “how to” manual for life, we have become no different from Jewish legalism.

[So, according to Bresson, biblical instruction is legalism and salvation by works.]

The Bible in and of itself is not the Word of God. The Bible has no meaning, no use, no authority, no reason for existence, no value to my life outside of the Person as Word giving it meaning. And *that*, de facto, means that the Person giving it meaning *is* more important that the text itself. In this age of using the Bible as proof-texts for apologetics, we need to be warned against treating the scriptures as if they are more important than the Person behind them.

[In other words, making imperatives a description of Jesus rather than instructions from Jesus to be followed.]

I realize many will claim they aren’t doing this, but too often the practice in our apologetics says otherwise.

Reader:

How do you know anything about your “Christocentric” theology apart from the written word of God? You wouldn’t even know Christ was the Son of God apart from the written Word of God.

The link you provided in the original post has another article on how “sola scriptura” can be a “great heresy”.

I’m very concerned about the direction you’re heading. I mean that sincerely.

Bresson:

First, don’t make the mistake of thinking just because it is the text that tells us about Christocentricity that the text is primary. If Christ is the source of the text as its author and He is the one investing it with meaning, He is primary and central, not the text (just as an invention is no greater than its inventor). There is a de facto subservience between text and Person.

[Which means that you can now interpret Scripture anyway you want to. Is this why God said He exalts His word above all of His name (Psalm 138:2)? Christ continually warned people against any supposed lofty view of God that dismissed a necessity to obey (Luke 6:46 and Luke 11:27-29).]

Second, the ad hominem isn’t helpful, nor is it accurate. I would quote something from the pope if I thought it would be helpful conveying a thought here. This blog is not dominated by, but still dotted with liberal theologians who, in spite of their heresy, manage to exegete some things rightly. I think N.T. Wright has some good things to say. I think Karl Rahner has some good things to say. Both end up in damnable positions that should be avoided upon pain of life. The pope affirms the resurrection of Christ. If I affirm it too, will I end up Catholic? Not hardly.

There are two reasons your analogy doesn’t wash: 1. Brinsmead wrote this ditty during a time of his life (as SDA, no less) when he affirmed reformed theology. That this guy is now an atheist is irrelevant. 2. What Brinsmead says here isn’t anything different than what has been posted on this blog for the past three years. In fact, given the recent articles written by the guys at Southern, what Brinsmead writes here could have just as easily have been written by one of them.

What I’m hearing here seems to be a kicking against the historical (not to mention biblical) goads of redemptive historical Christology.

Reader:

I didn’t toss an ad hominem attack. I am criticizing the doctrine you are pursuing; I am not attacking you personally at all.

I didn’t know this guy is now an atheist. I don’t know anything about him.

I see in the Christocentric theology a dangerous trend to minimize the words of scripture (reminds me of previous discussions we’ve had on inspiration).

Bresson:

I believe the greater danger lies with those who would so exalt the Bible, that the Centrality of Christ in all of life and all of history is eclipsed. And *that* is the legacy of the conservativism of our own day.