From the Antinomian’s Own Mouth: What is New Covenant Theology? Part 5; Law
“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
Seven-Eleven Music: Ephesians 5:19
Susan and I are having a great study together in the book of Ephesians. I have come to believe that Ephesians is the go-to book for a new ministry. It seems like the basics are all there: the gospel, prayer. our resources in Christ, unity, eschatology, church polity, the dynamics of biblical change, and even music.
Music has never been my big thing in the Christian life, and I always assumed it was just a preference issue until Susan and I got to verse nineteen of chapter five, then it hit me. The apostle Paul commands us to sing in the midst of the following context: edification. The primary purpose of music is to edify. This should be obvious (though it never has been to me) because Paul said to sing to each other in “psalms.” What is a psalm? It is truth set to a hymn, and without a doubt, Paul had the book of Psalms in mind. The book of Psalms is deep theology.
How ironic; in many churches, they preach from the book of Psalms, but the singing in the same churches will be set to “Seven-Eleven” music, or seven words repeated eleven times, otherwise known as “praise and worship” music. But to be honest, it is likely that churches who sing Seven-Eleven music also preach the same way: the same truth said different ways and repeated all year long. We call that “milk,” and not spiritual meat. Like the praise and worship music of our day, and the accompaniment of similar preaching, much of it will always be about one thing; the gospel, preached and taught 104 different ways per year. We call this Historical-Redemptive preaching (sorry, couldn’t help but to slip that in).
Music is a powerful way to remind us of truth. How often do you leave a department store with the difficulty of getting some tune out of your head, and often, a song you don’t even like! But even though the facts of the gospel are glorious, along with all of the trappings / blessings that come with it, I really think, “ok, we got it.” My point is this: church music should do more than jack us up emotionally, it should edify and replay truth in our heads all week long, with the great joy it also invokes.
The edifying songs are out there: A Mighty Fortress; Take My Life and Let it Be; Count the Cost; Praise Him in the Storm, and many, many more. Pay attention to your church’s music. Is it Paul’s kind of music, or 7/11 music?
paul
New Calvinism: It’s Antinomianism, That’s Why…
“The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.”
~ Dr. Peter Masters
Some time ago, I posted an article in an attempt to answer articles written by bloggers who were bemoaning the behavior of John Piper in regard to who he was inviting to his conferences, etc (one example is Steve Camp’s post: goo.gl/h0R6X). In the post, I say the following: “Let me suggest that Piper’s indifference to this behavior is spawned by his theology. Has that thought ever crossed anybodies mind?” After all, what is our first clue that Piper is an Antinomian when he plainly says that Christians are dead to the Law in regard to sanctification? And, the Law’s only purpose for the believer is to see what Jesus has done for us, period, nothing else (Piper Sermon, “How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God”). The aforementioned post where I attempt to show the source for Piper’s behavior can be read here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-gG .
But what sparked my re-post of this issue is a couple of articles I stumbled upon by Dr. Peter Masters who is the pastor of Charles Spurgeon’s old church. My guess would be that the folks at the Metropolitan don’t let just anybody in there to be pastor. In the article I will cite, he calls out “New Calvinism” for becoming worldly, and names, names. It is my contention that the primary doctrine of New Calvinism is Gospel Sanctification, or, the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us. So obviously, if we could not utilize a role for the Law in justification, other than it showing us our sinfulness and our inability to uphold it, neither can we utilize it for any purpose in sanctification either. That’s Antinomianism: Christians are not obligated to the Law because they are powerless to uphold it and Christ already completely fulfilled it for us anyway ( the imputation of active obedience performed by Christ, not us. Some good articles on this can be found here: http://networkedblogs.com/bh12C and here: http://networkedblogs.com/bh12C and here: http://networkedblogs.com/bh12C . These links are 3 of 6 by the same author).
So, wouldn’t it stand to reason that such a movement would become more and more worldly? It should; after all, it’s Antinomianism. Dr. Peter Masters’ article is here:
And some of his concerns with John Piper’s theology concerning sanctification can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080513234516/http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/?page=articles&id=3
paul
A Reader’s Fair Question: What are the Goals of Your Blog Regarding Gospel Sanctification?
Another interesting article, Paul.
These things you write keep leaving me wondering: how are you hoping to help the Evangelical community to stop going the wrong way and start going the right way? How many read your posts? What impact are your posts having? Finally, what are you doing outside of your posts to help? What, if anything, is effective?
Good questions Tad, I’m glad you asked:
The doctrine is the epitome of boiling a frog slowly ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog ). Its covert nature is truly over the top. I sat under it for six years, and knew something didn’t seem right, but couldn’t put my finger on it. The doctrine’s framework has all the orthodox labels, but it redefines the essentials: justification, sanctification, repentance, obedience etc. It synthesizes justification and sanctification, changes repentance into “deep repentance,” and changes obedience into “new obedience.” Interestingly, though I’m sure its proponents don’t have regular meetings, there is a common thread among them: they avoid labels like the plague. It goes along with a deep-seated mentality that to accept a label is to acquiesce to some idea that their doctrine has not been the truth since the beginning.
So, this brings me to answering your first question. An enemy (the doctrine) cannot be defeated until you put a face on it. My primary goal right now is to label this hideous doctrine “Gospel Sanctification,” AND, to promote the idea that GS is, in fact, Antinomianism. Also interesting: when you talk to its proponents directly, and use that term, they don’t blink for a second – they know exactly what you are talking about, but they themselves never use the term, never. I might add that they fear the term and actually despise it for whatever reasons. A good example of this is the Antioch School in Ames, Iowa. When I called them, my first question was, “are you, and your school, proponents of Gospel Sanctification?” Shockingly, the representative of the school answered with a simple “yes.” Somewhat taken aback, I continued: “uh, in other words, the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us.” His answer? “Yes.”
Let me interject some simplicity here. The gospel is the good news about justification / justification is monergistic / if the same gospel that saved us sanctifies us, sanctification is also monergistc / if sanctification is monergistic, that eliminates any use or application of the Law (or Scripture as a whole) in the sanctification process / that’s Antinomianism. By the way, I will soon be doing a series on the Antinomianoch School in Ames, Iowa.
Secondly, in regard to your first question, it is my goal to get better and better at articulating this doctrine in understandable ways while embracing the daunting task of not looking like I’m “dissing the gospel,” a smoke screen that serves its proponents in grand fashion. Men such as Jay Adams even recognize the difficulty in articulating a description of this doctrine.
Thirdly, in regard to your first question, it is my goal to get better equipped men (than me) off their asses to do something about this problem. I think my frustration may be reflected in the prior sentence. The doctrine is blatant Antinomianism invirtue of its premise, and needs to be stopped.
Fourthly, in regard to your first question, I intend to continually challenge better equipped teachers than I to stop loving their relationships with the who’s who of Evangelicalism more than the truth. I will also challenge them to love the truth more than the credibility of their diplomas. If their alma maters are propagating a false doctrine – love the truth more than your diploma.
Now in regard to your second question: I resolved in my heart long ago to do my best to write about this doctrine, no matter how many read my blog, until better equipped men address this problem. I have other goals in life; such as, I would like to go back to school and focus on counseling. With that said, the blog is experiencing a significant increase in readership (well more than double from the blogs conception in August of last year). But, it is what it is, and though the readership does number in the thousands, it just doesn’t matter, somebody has to speak-up any way they can.
Now your third question, “impact.” Five individuals have contacted me directly and said something like this: “Some time ago, our leadership seemed to be taking a different direction. I knew there was something wrong, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it.” The blog, and my book, which was a huge struggle for a layman such as myself (my thanks to those who helped, especially my daughter, Heather), supplied them with an understanding of the doctrine’s major tenets and ramifications. I would also be remiss in not mentioning the fact that at least one church has reversed course in response to a parishioner confronting the leadership using materials from this blog. I think it’s a joke that my book is the only work out there on GS. As I work on the second addition which will focus more on the Antinomian aspect of GS, I continue to pray for others to respond as well. Regarding impact, there is some hint of a very capable person writing a book about the doctrine with my book as a “starting point.” That is what I would consider to be a significant impact.
Furthermore, I suspect many more people have made use of the blog that have not contacted me. From time to time, I will get a flurry of hits from a specific community for an extended period of time. I strongly suspect that it is parishioners trolling the web trying to figure out what the heck is going on in their church. When this happens, they are getting my three years of research dropped in their lap. Amen, couldn’t make me happier.
Lastly, outside of my blog, I am working on the second edition of my book, which I lose money on, and I write letters to prominent Evangelical leaders asking them to not associate with proponents of GS because it lends credibility to the doctrine. For example, I will soon be writing a letter to Al Mohler. I am going to ask him as a fellow Southern Baptist to not attend, nor speak at the 2011 “Together for the Gospel” conference, or T4G. This conference always features the who’s who of Gospel Sanctification, and like the Antioch School, is a major promoter of the doctrine. At some point, all of the letters I have written will be posted on my blog as a testimony to the fact that many of these men really don’t care about the truth, and only listen to those who they see as on par with their own greatness.
Effectiveness? Don’t know, but this I do know: this doctrine will eventually produce something really stupid that people will have to take note of. Because the doctrine has no face yet, its direct cause in situations like Coral Ridge are going unnoticed, but that will change. Also, this doctrine has had very ill effects in the area of counseling, and I have warned certain organizations by letter accordingly. But nothing is being done because when it gets right down to it, they don’t care. What matters is who they play golf with, who writes the forwards in their books, and who’s lunching with them at Applebees during the next scheduled conference.
Blessings to you Tad, and btw, I am still working through the materials you have sent me and have some returns.
Your brother,
paul
From the Antinomian’s Own Mouth: What is New Covenant Theology? Part 4; Living in a Narrative
Before I move on to part five which is Bresson’s NCT tenets on “Law,” let me take you into one more creepy interlude. NCT has no practical application for life or counseling; therefore, that void will be filled with abundant creepiness. Once again, I will reference one of Bresson’s readers to make a point.
In response to one of Bresson’s articles ( Abigail post dated 8/6/2008) promoting the idea that using Old Testament historical accounts for life lessons (or instruction) is misguided (a blatant rejection of many Scriptures like Nehemiah 13:25-27 and 1 Corinthians 10:6,11), a reader asked the following:
“I do have a question concerning ‘practical application’, you seem to diss it in the post (because it takes away from the central purpose). I am presently counseling a depressed person and I’m using Phil. 4:4-9. The passage seems to promises wonderful things for those who replace worry with right prayer and erroneous thoughts with true thoughts; namely, that Christ will guard our hearts and minds. Is this approach an improper use of the Scriptures, being practical application?”
Seems like a pretty straight forward question requiring a simple yes or no answer. But Bresson, obviously provoked by the question, responds with another post of 4800 words (Abigail post dated 8/14/2008) in an attempt to answer the readers question, because he couldn’t simply say, “yes, from the NCT perceptive, this kind of practical application of the Scriptures is improper.”
But the 4800 word “answer” led the reader to conclude the following:
“It seems that our primary concern is focus on the glory of Christ and the knowledge of him. This will produce the imperatives naturally. Also, history is still moving toward the return of Christ, by putting ourselves *into* the text, we recognize that we are the ongoing redemptive work of Christ, that didn’t end with the Scriptures. The Scriptures enable us to be part of the history. We are not making our own redemptive history, it is making us. We are between the beginning and the end, but all we need to identify with in Christ is bound in the Scriptures.”
Let me try to unravel that for you. It is the belief that the Bible is a meta-narrative (grand gospel narrative) that interprets our own spiritual life, which is also a predetermined narrative on a microcosmic scale. Therefore, all of reality is encompassed in the grand gospel narrative, or “Christ,” or “the gospel” (see Bresson’s NCT tenet # 1, as well as many other of his tenets in parts one and two). Therefore, the Bible produces a prismatic narrative in which to “see” our own life and interpret it via the gospel. When we understand, “see,” or interpret our life accordingly, it leads to “properly informed” spiritual outcomes, or what Bresson calls a “mere natural flow” regarding obedience, which isn’t obedience at all, but merely watching what Christ has already done for us in the constant unveiling of the “organic” gospel narrative.
So, we are to place ourselves into the narrative; and any attempt on our part to exert effort by following cognitive ideas from the Bible is an attempt to create our own narrative apart from God. Said by Bresson another way in his 4800 word reply: good preaching doesn’t take the text to the parishioner (ie., biblical principles to be learned and applied to life by the believer), but takes the believer to the text. This NCT concept, among many other antinomian / mystic ideas, was also presented by Paul David Tripp in “How People Change” when he said: “The big picture model [historical – redemptive] is the story of every believer. God invites us to enter into the plot!” (page 94). Tripp separates the grand gospel narrative (the Bible) into four categories: Heat, Thorns, Cross, and Fruit, which better enables believers to see where they fit into the grand narrative (supposedly).
In the midst of Bresson’s conversation with the first inquisitor, another reader asked Bresson where he could get more information on living life as a “divine drama.” Bresson replied with the following:
“If you’re interested in how we fit into the redemptive-historical *drama* :-), a couple of books that have interesting thoughts in this regard are Vanhoozer’s “Drama of Doctrine” and Horton’s “Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama”.
I don’t agree with everything they have to say, but I did find what they had to say about “participation”, “drama”, and Christ’s Incarnation to be thought-provoking. There are thoughts there compatible with what we’ve said here.”
Regarding the first reader, here is what Bresson had to say about the person’s aforementioned response:
“It looks like you’re understanding what I’ve said (a minor miracle, I know). I’ll get to your other questions shortly.”
There is no confusion of semantics or misunderstanding here, NCT is fraught with antinomian mysticism, and frankly, I find the Evangelical community’s willingness to associate with its proponents sickening.
paul
leave a comment