Paul's Passing Thoughts

“Finally, I must deprecate, and I do it in love, the use of uncouth and new-fangled terms and phrases in teaching sanctification. I plead that a movement in favor of holiness cannot be advanced by new-coined phraseology, or by disproportioned and one-sided statements – or by overstraining and isolating particular texts – or by exalting one truth at the expense of another – or by allegorizing and accommodating texts, and squeezing out of them meanings which the Holy Spirit never put in them.”

~ JC Ryle

 

Since NCT is an Antinomian doctrine, Bresson’s tenets on the Law are very important to consider. My comments are in brackets.

 

The Law

 

28. The Law of Moses (as a totality) was connected to a particular covenant people. It was codified after a specific act of redemption, the Exodus.

 

[ The only way this can be concluded is to make the Bible a narrative about a singular subject that has mystical powers when it is meditated on, and then making up your own rules of interpretation (ie., the Redemptive-Historical hermenuetic, hereafter RHH). The above cannot be ascertained by approaching the Bible as revelation from God and thereby drawing conclusions strictly from the text about all things, including interpretation.

 

Where would I even start to make this point? In Matthew 4:4, Christ said man LIVES by EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God. “Man lives” is in the present tense. “Every word” means what it says, and that would include the Decalogue and Pentateuch. “Man” certainly implies mankind in general, and not just the Jews.]

 

29. In the ultimate purpose of God, this Mosaic economy was temporary, destined to exist “until the time of reformation” (Heb.9:10) when God would speak in a final way in His Son in the last days (Heb.1:1-2).

 

[ Again, Bresson has to make the Bible a mystical narrative in order for this to fly, complete with a NCT hermeneutic based on elements outside of Scripture. Why would Christ mix the idea of anti-abolishment (in regard to the Law) with fulfillment? Why wouldn’t he rather say that His fulfillment equaled abolishment? If He said that He did not come to abolish the Law, but rather to fulfill it, “fulfill” must not have the idea of doing away with the necessity of the Law thereof (Matthew 5:17).

 

This is a simple issue of two idea’s having agreement in logical thought while in the same sentence. Obviously, one would expect this in a text written by God. But all of that can be bypassed using the RRH. Also, notice the connection of “the Law or the Prophets.” He didn’t come to abolish either. So how could the Mosaic economy, based on the Law, be temporary while the Prophet’s aren’t? Christ said He didn’t come to abolish either. Again, one must employ eisegesis rather than exegesis to come to these conclusions. Therefore, Hebrews 1:1-2 and 9:10 are not making the points that Bresson wants to make. It is a twisting of Scripture.]

 

30. Everything going on in Israel, including the covenants and the law, was of a typical nature, and was fulfilled in the person and work of Christ (Heb.3:5; 8:5; 9:8-9) who is the New Israel of God (Matthew 2:15).

 

[ This is how Bresson would answer my above question: whatever Christ didn’t come to fulfill and abolish the need for, is a type, not applicable instruction. The Law, the covenants, the Prophets, Israel, and everything “going on in Israel,” was-not really, and is-not really, the Law, the covenants, the Prophets, Israel, and stuff that happened in Israel, it is all “the person” of Christ and what He did. And by the way, everywhere you see Israel in the Bible, it really means “the person of Christ.”

 

Notice (in Bresson’s citing of Matthew 2:15) that the literal fulfillment of Christ coming back from Egypt after hiding there with His parents is compared to, and made to be 100% synonymous with the Exodus, making Christ the comprehensive embodiment of Israel. Furthermore, notice that a literal, grammatical hermeneutic is used to establish concrete ideas about what Christ fulfilled, and thereby eliminating the need for it. This is indicative of NCT’s RHH; it’s a dual hermeneutic applied where convenient, with propagators determining when and where to make the application.]

 

31. The Ten Commandments are not eternal moral law first written in the heart of man at creation and forever binding upon all mankind.

 

[ Yes it is. The Law of God is written on every living person’s heart and speaks to them through their conscience (Romans 2:14,15). ]

 

32. The Decalogue is not “transcovenantal”.

 

[ Yes it is. A comparison of Ephesians 2:11,12 and 6:1-3 makes that clear. However, Bresson, and NCT proponents in general would argue that “covenants” and “Israel” really mean “Christ,” and 6:1-3 is not imperative, but rather demonstrative of what Christ fulfilled for us. Apparently, that’s why Christ had parents, so He could obey them for us, and Eph. 6:1-3 merely informs us when Christ is actively doing that for children in the present (the imputed active obedience of Christ).]

 

33. The church no longer has to do with the law in any other way than in Christ, being onnomos Christou (in-lawed to Christ). The Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue, has been completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ which it typified in shadow and Decalogue, has been completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ which it typified in shadow and stone.

 

[ In NCT’s reinterpretation of repentance (“deep repentance” *repentance of heart idols to empty the heart so Christ can fill the void with himself and obey for us* ), and obedience (“new obedience” *Christ obeys for us*), you can now add “in-lawed” to Christ. Notice how Bresson deceptively refers to the term “onnomos Christou” to give the impression that the term has longstanding recognition from Reformation times like the Five solas (“sola scriptura” etc). I did a Google search on the term and got three hits, two from his blog and one from a Jon Zens who may be the same person as John Zens, a NCT hack. Like the Antinomians of the 19th century, they invent their own biblical terms and JC Ryle complained accordingly:

 

“Finally, I must deprecate, and I do it in love, the use of uncouth and new-fangled terms and phrases in teaching sanctification. I plead that a movement in favor of holiness cannot be advanced by new-coined phraseology, or by disproportioned and one-sided statements – or by overstraining and isolating particular texts – or by exalting one truth at the expense of another – or by allegorizing and accommodating texts, and squeezing out of them meanings which the Holy Spirit never put in them.”

 

Bresson, and other NCT minions are guilty of all of Ryles complaints.]

 

34. New Covenant believers are in-lawed to Christ through their union with Christ, and in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; they are not under the Old Covenant law of Moses.

 

[ Our obligation to uphold the Law in sanctification (meaning a setting apart, rather than looking like those who are unable to uphold God’s Law and are opposed to it) does not have anything to do with being under the Law for purposes of justification. Bressons belief that there is no distinction between sanctification and justification becomes evident hereafter.]

 

35. Because the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue, has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, New Covenant Theology denies that the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue, is binding on New Covenant believers today. Yet, as the special revelation of God as fulfilled in Christ, the Old Covenant law, including the Decalogue, continues to inform behavior in the New Covenant.

 

[He means it informs us regarding who is TRYING to obey (ie., us), or when we are YEILDING to the obedience of Christ. Also, per the usual, “binding” in regard to justification verses sanctification is not qualified.]

 

36. All behavioral norms, including those detailed in the Decalogue, are ultimately defined by and expressed in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

 

[ This is as close to being transparent as Bresson and other NCT advocates will get. He is all but clearly saying that biblical imperatives are performed by Christ, not us.]

 

37. Just as the law cannot justify, the law cannot sanctify. Just as it is impossible to be justified by the law, one cannot be sanctified by the law. The background problem being addressed by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3, Galatians 3-5, and Romans 7 (albeit in 3 different church situations) is the attempt to be sanctified by the law.

 

[ Bresson’s crafty deception continues. I’m not sure any Christian would say that our obedience directly produces spiritual life in sanctification, but it certainly does result in blessing (James 1:25), which harkens to a partial transition of the Law’s covenant of blessings and cursings (Ephesians 6:1-3). But what Bresson is really saying here, in a deliberately nuanced way, is that the Law has no role in sanctification. This is clearly Antinomianism.]

 

38. Regeneration does not change the inability of the law to transform. “Walking” in or by the law is the antithesis of “walking” in or by the Spirit (Galatians 5).

 

[ Again, Christians don’t believe that the Law alone transforms, this is a deceptive red herring used to make a case for Law having no role in the sanctification process. But, “walking in the Spirit” IS defined by a life aligned with Scripture (“Therefore, be imitators of God, as beloved chidren” (Ephesians 5:1). Bresson, like other NCT proponents, creates an other-than biblical standard for “walking in the Spirit,” and based on what? Who knows! And again, justification and sanctification are united under the one term “regeneration” in his above statement.]

 

39. The New Covenant law is called the law of Christ which is distinguished — both in substance and in form — from the Mosaic law.

 

[Bresson doesn’t even supply his usual twisting of Scripture to support this statement.]

 

40. God’s Old Covenant law is fulfilled in Christ Himself and obeyed by those in Christ who love God and their neighbor.

 

[This is a subtle acknowledgment of the NCT belief that Christians are only obligated to one Law, the Law of love. The manifestation of this law is subjective at best, and has no biblical guideline at worst. Notice the subtle transition between the specific (Old Covenant) Law “fulfilled” in Christ and the “obedience” of the believer in regard to the one law only. Bresson isn’t saying that Christians are obligated to obey the Law, that would contradict what he said in tenet number 36; specifically, that the Law is only “expressed” by Christ and His works. This reflects the NCT belief that the Old Testament Law has been replaced with a nebulous “higher law of love.” Again, it’s clearly a form of Antinomianism.]

 

41. New Covenant Theology insists that the law of Christ is not to be equated with the Decalogue, nor, is it to be equated with that work of the law which was on the heart of Adam and all natural men.

 

[ As my son-in-law / pastor has aptly noted, NCT is eerily similar to Gnostic heresies that taught all matter is evil and only things of the Spirit are good. Hence, the NCT fetish with the Law being written on stone and the idea that the written words in the Bible have no life when seen as having instructive value.]

 

42. The Old Covenant Sabbath commandment is typologically fulfilled by Christ for the people of God who rest in Him by faith (Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16,17; Heb. 4:9-10). New Covenant Theology denies that Sunday is a Christian Sabbath after the manner of the Old Covenant.

 

[ Most orthodox Christians wouldn’t burn on the stake for this one.]

 

43. Christ is the Law of the New Covenant, incarnating the new standard of judgment as to what “has had its day” in the law and what has abiding validity (Col. 2:17). The Holy Spirit is the indwelling Law of Christ, causing New Covenant members to obey Christ the Law in conformity to His image.

 

[Again, just another way of saying Christ obeys for us.]

 

44. God also promised that each New Covenant member would have His law written on their hearts. This promise, typified by circumcision, is fulfilled by the Holy Spirit who dwells in believers to guide their steps and conform them to Christ.

 

[Notice, Bresson is saying that the idea of the Law being written on our hearts is “typified” by circumcision, but “fulfilled” by the Holy Spirit. Again, just another way of expressing “the imputed active obedience of Christ.”]

 

45. Just as the Old Covenant community was structured by written revelation which centered in Moses, so the New Covenant community is ordered by the “law of Christ” as personified and incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ, applied by the Holy Spirit, and given in the writing of the Apostles and prophets (Eph.2:20).

 

[ Again, the one law isn’t a “list of do’s and dont’s,” or “cognitive concepts to be applied to life,” but they are a person, or “personified” in Christ.]

 

46. The indwelling Holy Spirit, the law written on the heart, is the norm for Christian living.

 

[ Again, the Law really isn’t written on our heart literally, that might imply that we could do something along with the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, IS “the law written on the heart.” And of course it is the norm for Christian living because it is the HS doing it all. This also beckons to the NCT belief that Christians are still totally depraved. As Paul David Tripp says of believers: “When you are dead you can’t do anything.”]

 

47. New Covenant Theology emphasizes that it is the Spirit, the indwelling “law”, who both causes (Ezekiel 36:27) and enables the Christian to be conformed to and transformed into Christ’s image, Who is the Imago Dei, the perfect image of God.

 

[Again, just another way of saying Christ obeys for us. The Law isn’t something God says to be learned and obeyed, it’s a person who obeys for us. That is why advocates of NCT believe that Christians often act-out truth that they have no knowledge of.]

 

48. Because Christ has obeyed the law on behalf of his people and has become a law for his people, unlike the external Mosaic law, the Law of Christ as the Spirit applied to the redeemed is able to effect and enable the obedience and love that is in accord with Christ’s obedience and love.

 

[ In other words, Christ’s obedience has also been imputed to us, not His righteousness only. And that obedience is “effected” by the Spirit. Christ died for our sins, and supposedly lived for our obedience. Obviously, we don’t have to obey because Christ “obeyed the law on behalf of his people.”]

 

49. For the New Covenant church, the law of God is no longer an external standard that demands compliance with the will of God. The Law of Christ as the indwelling Spirit is now an internal person who causes and inclines us to obey God from the heart.

 

[ Hence, as Bresson often says, true obedience is ALWAYS a “mere natural flow” because it is Christ obeying for us. According to NCT, this is how we know whether we are trying to “obey in our own efforts” or we are merely letting Christ obey for us. Don’t be deceived by the “enablement” language. Likewise, John Piper believes that the “external righteousness of God” has been imputed to us through the atonement and is evidenced by obedience that is ALWAYS accompanied by joy. This is the primary thesis of his “Christian Hedonism.”]

 

50. The New Commandment of the New Covenant, the Law of Christ, expresses the indwelling of the Spirit through belief in Christ and love for one another (John 13:34, Galatians 6:2, 1 John 3:23) .

 

[ Right, this is sanctification by FAITH ALONE, which “expresses” the Spirit through the singular law of love. Notice that Bresson refers to the New Covenant Law as a SINGLE law: “New Commandment,” and “Law” of Christ. Yet, Christ’s mandate to the church is to “observe ALL that I have commanded.”]

 

51. NCT does not teach that the Ten Commandments are the objective standard for evaluating the Christian life. Christ is now the objective standard by which all holiness in the Christian life is measured.

 

[ Christians believe all of Scripture is for this, not just the Ten commandments. Also, what does Bresson mean when he says, in essence, the following: what Christ said is not the objective standard for living the Christian life, but rather Christ Himself. What does that mean? It only makes sense if we are supposed to sit back and watch what Christ does through us, which might be anything. Paul Tripp calls this, “new and surprising fruit” (because we aren’t the ones really doing it).]

 

52. The progression of history to a final New Covenant guarantees the “law of Christ”, as personified and incarnated by Jesus Christ, and applied by the Spirit who is written on personified and incarnated by Jesus Christ, and applied by the Spirit who is written on the heart, to be sufficient for the church.

 

[ The singular law of Christ is expressed through the Spirit who is written on our hearts, not the Law. The Law is no longer relevant because it has been fulfilled by Christ. This “expression” by the Spirit is “sufficient” for the church. Therefore, we are passive vessels that God uses like neon signs to express His glory.]

 

paul