From the Antinomian’s Own Mouth: What is New Covenant Theology? Part 2; Covenants
“In my estimation, his view of Scripture is Antinomian heresy.”
“The apostle Paul refers to the previous state of regenerate Gentiles as synonymous with being ‘alienated’ from the ‘covenants of promise'”
This continues the series from part one on New Covenant Theology: http://wp.me/pmd7S-qy. The introduction to the series can be read there.
Covenants
16. God’s redemption of his people is revealed and administered through the unfolding of God’s redemption of his people is revealed and administered through the unfolding of biblical covenants in the flow of redemptive history.
[Though I would not contend with this statement on face value, inherent in NCT is Replacement Theology and Supercessionism. I am not going to take space here to contend with those either, but would mention that NC theologians are normally not forthcoming in regard to their position on Israel. Whenever Bresson uses the term “his people,” understand that he is excluding any, and all redemptive-historical uniqueness in regard to Israel.]
17. God’s promise of the New Covenant was that the Messiah would be Himself the embodiment of an everlasting covenant with His people. This promise, typified in the covenants, is fulfilled in Christ. (Is. 42:6-9; 43:19; 45:21-25; 46:9-13).
[Bresson excludes the fact that the New Covenant was a promise to Israel specifically (Jeremiah 31). Also, notice Bresson’s use of the term “embodiment” that he uses to personify propositional truth and textual ideas (i.e., “the word of God is a person,” “God is not a cognitive concept, He’s a person,” etc, etc). When you establish a prism (which seems to be a lofty endeavor to enhance intimacy) that focuses on God as a person, rather than what He says, God’s authority is diminished in exchange for all kinds of nebulous concepts, and NCT is in no short supply thereof accordingly.]
18. The Old and New Covenants are two different covenants in terms of both form and function. The one is an administration of death, and the other is an administration of life (2 Cor. 3:6-8).
[2 Corinthians refers to the Law’s role in exposing sin and the folly of those who would try to be justified by it. NCT takes that a step further and uses this text to say the upholding of the Law by believers is also a ministry of death / legalism / salvation by works. Hence, biblical instruction for believers is said to be “the letter of the Law” and a ministry of death. NCT teaches that the Holy Spirit only sanctifies when Scripture is seen through the prism of the gospel (the works of Christ and His personhood) for the purpose of gazing on its glory only. Looking to the Scriptures for instruction by believers is likened to law-keeping for the purpose of being justified under the Old Covenant. Bresson’s view on this is made absolutely clear in his post, “The Word of God is a Person.” I address Bresson’s post in detail here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-fS. In my estimation, his view of Scripture is Antinomian heresy.]
19. The New Covenant is distinct from, while typified by, previous covenants in the Old Testament. The New Covenant, personified by and incarnated in Christ, fulfills all previous covenants making them obsolete, including the Abrahamic and Sinaitic Covenants.
[In other words, previous covenants are only “types” of the New Covenant and not part of it. Therefore, all promises to Israel under the previous covenants are “obsolete,” being fulfilled by their “incarnation” and “personifi[cation]” in Christ via the New Covenant. Said another way: they were only types of the coming Christ, and now that He has come, they have no present or future application. Besides, they were never cognitive concepts anyway, they were always Him (Mysticism that gives permission to interpret the Bible anyway you want to). However, Ephesians 2:12 debunks all of this. The apostle Paul refers to the previous state of regenerate Gentiles as synonymous with being “alienated” from the “covenants of promise” (notice the plural form and the “promise” nomenclature). Furthermore, Paul then validates this idea and the validity of former covenants, and their present / future application by citing Old Testament Law to make a New Testament point, with the added incentive of a promise (Ephesians 6:1-3).]
20. Christ has fulfilled the Adamic, Noaic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants in his life, death, resurrection, and exaltation. While he has completely fulfilled them, they yet will be consummated in him in the New Heavens and New Earth.
[Again, Old Testament covenants are not indicative of anything future, they are only types of Christ and His personhood.]
21. The New Covenant is a new covenant in its own right. The New Covenant is not the Abrahamic Covenant or a recapitulation of the Abrahamic Covenant. The New Covenant is not a new administration of the Mosaic Covenant.
[Though this is true to a point, it does not make the “perfect Law of liberty” (James 1:25) a “ministry of death.”]
22. The New Covenant is not like the covenant made with the people through Moses. Embodied and personified in Christ, the New Covenant brought into existence through the life and cross work of Christ is made with his redeemed people through grace. God’s people do not enter the New Covenant by works, but by grace through faith; it is radically internal, not external; everlasting, not temporary.
[This doesn’t mean that the upholding of the Law by believers is works salvation as NCT teaches.]
23. The tearing in two of the veil in the temple was a decisive, supernatural act that visibly demonstrated the end of the Old Covenant and the establishment of the New. This end of the Old Covenant was consummated in the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.
[Notice that Bresson doesn’t cite any Scripture on this point.]
24. As the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises of a New Covenant, Jesus Christ personifies, embodies, and incarnates the New Covenant. Thus, he Himself is the New Covenant (Isaiah 42:6, 49:8, Luke 22:20).
[Like I said, under NCT, covenants are made to be a mystical personification of Christ rather than an emphasis on His truth and authority (Matthew 28:19,20).]
25. All of Scripture is to be read, understood, and interpreted in light of the New Covenant, established in Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:17; Luke 10:23-24; 24:27, 44; John 5:46; 8:56; Heb. 10:7). The New Covenant has become the interpretive paradigm for understanding the church’s existence in temporal and redemptive history.
[Again, this idea excludes New Testament instruction (2Timothy 3:16), and exchanges it for a mystical pondering upon the gospel narrative (New Covenant). Notice Bresson says Scripture is to be “read,” “understood,” and “interpreted.” All concepts of obedience and instruction are not missing by accident.]
26. True biblical theology of the New Covenant is the recognition of God’s purpose, unfolding and weaving its way from Genesis to Revelation on the timeline of redemptive history, culminating in Jesus Christ.
[Again, notice what is always missing in Bresson’s verbiage.]
27. Christ’s inauguration of the New Covenant brings in things that are both qualitatively and quantatively “newer,” expressed in developing the theological significance of such basic concepts as new wineskins, new teaching, new commandment, new creation, new man, new name, new song, new Jerusalem and all things new (Rev. 21:5).
[ Much could be said here, but notice Bresson’s reference to a “new commandment” in the singular. This reflects the NCT belief that Christ fulfilled, and actively fulfills for us, the Law, and has exchanged it for a singular “higher law of love.” Hence, believers are only required to obey this one law. In fact, this is how the Clearcreek Chapel elders (where Bresson “serves”), and many other NCT churches function. Parishioners are continually confused by leaders who disregard clear biblical instruction for other courses of action, not understanding the theology behind it. If the motivation is love, that’s the standard. Greg Gibson notes the following on page 112 of his book on NCT: “It’s hard to believe that anyone can read the hundreds of commandments in the New Testament and conclude there’s only one command: Love. Yet, some hold that view based on the following verses…[Romans 13:8-10 and Galatians 5:14].” ]
paul
Until Death Do Us Part…Unless: Job 2:9
I’m not much for pomp and circumstance; now that Susan and I are engaged, I say let’s go to the courthouse, gett’r done, and get on with the Lord’s business of being married. Susan has different ideas. She was sharing one of those ideas with me a couple of weeks ago; specifically, she would like us to kneel together at the alter at some point during the ceremony – a demonstration of humility before the Lord and witnesses.
At first, because of my general indifference to ceremonial subject matter, the idea didn’t exactly raise my pulse rate. But then I started thinking about Job’s wife, and good old-fashioned American wedding vows in general: “…to love and to cherish, in good times and bad, till death do us part.”
Ceremony. Why my disdain? Because of what it has become in this country, especially ceremonies involving vows, and all because the world doesn’t take God seriously. Psalm 15 describes those who are allowed to dwell with God; one of those characteristics is a person “…who keeps his oath even when it hurts…” (verse 4). God is very serious about vows because He doesn’t dwell with those who are not like Him. When God makes a promise – He is faithful, always.
But before we even get to the American wedding vow, you have to eliminate the following consideration: even among professing Christians, weddings have become a ceremony / party hybrid. For example (on Facebook), I read in disbelief as a recent convert confronted the wives of seasoned pastors (well known, and supposedly on the cutting edge of Reformed theology) because they applauded the posting of a video documenting a wedding that had all of the appearances of being traditional until the wedding participants suddenly sprang into a choreograph using a song that depicts illicit sex. Ha, ha, hee, hee, very funny, wow, how cool is that? Well, the pastor’s wives thought it was pretty cool, and encouraged other engaged ladies who were part of that Facebook group to do the same, or something similar. They also dismissed the protesting young lady as, you guessed it, “legalistic.” Go figure.
Now we move on to consider those who wouldn’t cheapen the ceremony in this way, but recite the same vow that Job’s wife recited (or as we may assume, something similar): “…to love and to cherish, in good times and bad, till death do us part, unless_____________”(fill in the blank with just about anything). Job was a good husband (Job 1:1), and when God took away what his wife might have loved most about him (Job 1:3), she said, “curse God and die” (Job 2:9). Job’s reply reveals one of his righteous characteristics; he didn’t accuse her of being characterized by foolishness, but said that she was speaking “like” one of the “foolish women” would speak. And in the context of marriage, and regarding spouses in general, both husbands and wives, what is that? Simply put, it is a spouse that doesn’t understand a major reality regarding wedding vows. Job stated it to her this way: “He replied, ‘You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?’”
That would be the “in good times and bad” part of traditional marriage vows. It is the accepting of whatever God has for us in life as a married couple; good or bad, and faithfulness to each other following. Regarding the “to love and to cherish” part, Job had to minister to himself (Job 2:7,8). As far as the “till death do us part,” Job’s wife is nowhere mentioned by the time his three friends arrive to minister to him. In fact, she insisted that he would shorten that part: “Curse God and die.”
Christians forget that we are in the middle of a war between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light (Job 2:2-6), and married couples are intimate partners in the midst of that warfare; they are to be ready for anything. It is also clear in Scripture that marriage is a major front in that warfare of which the kingdom of darkness is keenly interested (1Corinthians 7:5). Somehow, even among Christians, the marriage ceremony before God and witnesses marking the commitment to stand together in the midst of spiritual warfare, and for God’s glory, has become a flippant, lighthearted affair. At best, the vows are just ceremonial words to be looked at like flower arrangements around the alter, rather than soberly heard to drive the heart to deep resolve. At worst, a mere party where the god of innovation is called on to make the event a “special memory” that will last as long as a thrilling ride on a roller coaster.
Now Susan’s idea looks pretty good. In light of the fact that we do not know what God will call on us to do, we should kneel before God, the angels, and all the human witnesses to call on God to be with us, and to strengthen us in deep love, whether the days be good or evil, that we be found like Him: faithful.
paul
From the Antinomian’s Own Mouth: What is New Covenant Theology? Part 1; Interpretation
From time to time, I cruise by the blog site, “Vossed World” authored by Christian mystic / antinomian Chad Bresson to obtain some conveniently packaged information for my writings on Gospel Sanctification. Bresson’s site primarily promotes Gospel Sanctification theology, though he never uses that term specifically. He is one of eight pastors “serving” Clearcreek Chapel located in Springboro, Ohio. Bresson is also a radio personality for CDR, a radio ministry of Cedarville University.
During a recent visit to the site, and after the usual progression of “huh?” And “what the heck does that mean?” I found an article where Bresson lists his 63 tenets of New Covenant Theology. This is convenient because I can address the tenets separately, and one at a time. The work is also a culmination of other NCT theologians.
But let’s first start with some background information. New Covenant Theology is new; I mean, really, really new.
If I remember correctly, Richard Barcellos, in his book, “In Defense of the Decalogue: A Critique of New Covenant Theology” places its significant emergence somewhere during the year 2000, a mere ten years ago. NCT is also intrinsically connected to Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics, Gospel Sanctification, Heart Theology, and John Piper’s Christian Hedonism. These five form a coordinated theology with RHH, HT, and CH being minor tenets, and either NCT or GS being the major tenet that encompasses the other four. The pastors at Clearcreek Chapel where Bresson functions prefer NCT as the major tenet while refusing to recognize the GS interpretive label, even though the senior pastor (Russ Kennedy) proclaimed any separation of justification and sanctification as an “abomination.”
Not only is it new, the very conception of four of five of its intrinsic tenets can be traced back to one source, Westminster Seminary. One writer notes the following:
“It [NCT] seems to have originated at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia as a reaction to the teachings of Theonomy, which over emphasizes Old Testament law. In recent decades it has achieved an increasing degree of acceptance among many Reformed Baptists. A scholarly refutation of these new [emphasis mine] ideas has long been needed” (David Marshall, Trinity Reformed Baptist Church, Hamilton, New Zealand).
My point is: there was a time when these facts would cause a teaching / theology to be rejected out of hand. But no more. There can be little doubt that we are in the time the apostle Paul warned would come; it is a time where people will heap to themselves teachers with itching ears. Chad Bresson himself once said that such doctrines are what “makes Clearcreek Chapel unique.” Is it our goal to pursue niche doctrines for the sake of being unique? I think not.
Here are Bresson’s NCT tenets. I will post four or five parts according to Bresson’s catagories, Interpretation, Covenants, The Law, The Church, and Israel. My contentions are in brackets:
“ What is New Covenant Theology?
This is a repost from Christ My Covenant, which published a list I have drafted over time to answer questions put to me about New Covenant Theology. It is a work in progress [usually, that is the case with NEW doctrines], and to be honest, isn’t simply a reflection of my thought, but others…especially those in the Earth Stove Society. I’m also indebted to Gary Long, who drafted his own set of NCT tenets some time ago…. some may even see this as an expansion of his work.”
What is New Covenant Theology?
Chad Richard Bresson
Interpretation of the Bible
1. New Covenant Theology insists on the priority of Jesus Christ over all things, including history, revelation, and redemption. New Covenant Theology presumes a Christocentricity to the understanding and meaning of all reality.
[All cults and isms distort the Trinity by overemphasizing one member over the other. The Jehovah Witnesses overemphasize the Father – Charismatics overemphasize the Holy Spirit, etc. Furthermore, Scripture does not say that all reality is seen through Christ. This statement is an invitation to unbridled mysticism, especially the idea that some sort of Christocentric prism (focusing on His personhood, rather than what He says) takes priority over revelation. Therefore, the plain sense of Scripture will often be replaced with a tortured attempt to see the gospel/Christ/redemption in every verse of the Bible, or the exclusion of Scripture altogether where a Chrstocentric context cannot be discovered.]
2. Christ in heaven has not only reached the goal of history and its reality, he Himself is the goal of history and reality, giving meaning to all that has occurred in human history and will occur in human history. Since it is Christ who gives meaning to human history, he is the One who interprets all of the deeds and acts of God in history.
[Though partly, and gloriously true, it contradicts the idea that we also look for other things in history besides Christ. Other than rewards, Peter said we “look (wait) for new heavens and new earth.” Christ came preaching the “good news of the kingdom.” The above statement is extreme and paves the way to interpret truth through a Christocentric prism devised by someone’s own imagination.]
3. Special revelation, comprised of the 66 books that we call the Sacred Scriptures, not only informs us about God, but redeems us and makes God present to us, focusing on the person and work of Jesus.
[It’s not “special” revelation, the Scriptures are “specific” revelation. Bresson carefully calls it “special” because NCT (the RHH part) holds that the Scriptures are only sacred when used for redemptive purposes. Hence, when Bressen says the Scriptures “redeem us,” us doesn’t mean mankind in general, but “us” as Christians. This reflects the GS belief that Chrsitians are continually re-saved / justified by focusing on the “person and work of Christ” in the Scriptures, and that only. His careful word crafting also reflects the GS belief that Christ obeys for us, using “work[s]” of Christ in the present tense. Bresson calls this “the imputed active obedience of Christ.”]
4. New Covenant Theology interprets Scripture after the manner of Christ’s and the New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament. Jesus and the inspired New Testament writers, by their use of the Old Testament Scriptures, have left us a pattern by which to interpret not only the Old Testament prophecies, but its history and poetry.
[Yes, this is known as the often touted “apostles hermeneutic.” Per the usual, it is Bresson’s M.O. To exclude interpretive labels that could be used in a search engine. Many articles have been written for the purpose of asking the following question about the apostles hermeneutic: where is it? Matt Waymeyer presents the question this way: “What exactly is the ‘apostles hermeneutic’? What exactly is this pattern that modern-day interpreters are to follow? What specific hermeneutical principles are modeled by the NT writers that should guide contemporary interpretation? Can they be stated propositionally? If so, what are they? If not, why not? Should these hermeneutical principles be applied consistently to all of Scripture, or only certain parts of it? If only certain parts, which parts, and why only those parts?” These questions have not yet been answered by anybody.]
5. The way that Jesus, the Apostles, and the prophets used the Old Testament is normative for this age.
[ Normative? Nobody has defined the hermeneutic!]
6. The entire Old Testament, the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, point forward to and anticipate the WORD Incarnate, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). New Covenant Theology presumes that Jesus Christ, in his person and his saving acts, is the hermeneutic center of the Bible.
[Not according to Jesus. His “person[hood]” is not a “hermeneutic[al] center” of the Bible. Jesus didn’t emphasize his personhood as a matter of interpretation, but rather, “do what I say.” Neither did Jesus strongly emphasize his own “saving acts” when you compare it to His strong emphasis on obeying what He said, as opposed to looking deeper and deeper into His actions and personality. One is subjective; the other objective. Jesus’ mandate to the church was to “observe all that I have commanded,” NOT, all that I am and what I have done.]
7. A careful study of the way Jesus and the New Testament writers understand and write about the Old Testament shows that the Old Testament’s anticipated Messiah (and His work) is revealed in the types and shadows of the revelation of the Old Testament, both in God’s speech-revelation and God’s acts. The Old Testament provides the salvation context for the person and work of Jesus.
[Again, a “careful study” has not yet produced an articulation of the “apostles hermeneutic.” Also, note Bresson’s fetish with continually writing about Christ’s works in the singular “work.” This satisfies his obsession with the idea that Christ continues to work in our place, and that sanctification is His work alone, totally apart from us. The “work” of Christ has more of a present emphasis than the “works” of Christ. Also, Bresson doesn’t like the idea that the many “works” of Christ had other emphasis apart from redemption. Yet, the Scriptures are pregnant with a strong emphasis on His “many works.” In fact, one would be hard pressed to find “work” in the singular when referring to Jesus in the Bible. One example would be John 21:25. Bresson wants us to believe that every one of Jesus’ works that John was talking about (according to John, the world would not be able to hold all of the books needed to record them) had redemptive context. As we shall see, Bresson’s teaching is continually fraught with extra-biblical, and other than Biblical terminology.]
8. The Old Covenant scriptures, what we call The Old Testament, are to be interpreted in the light of their new covenant fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Jesus is not only the interpretive key to understanding the Old Testament, the terminology of the Old Testament must be understood through and defined in light of Christ’s fulfillment.
[ If “Old Covenant scriptures” is a more accurate reference, why would the church traditionally refer to it as the “ Old Testament”? Again, Bresson’s intent is to use theological sounding, but unorthodox terminology to spoon feed erroneous concepts. This is an attempt by Bresson to get Christians to see the whole Bible as a redemptive, Christocentric document only, divided by the older version verses the newer version. Also, if the new interprets the old, this gives the supposed ability to reinterpret covenants in the OT that aren’t redemptive, like God’s promises to Israel concerning land etc. Furthermore, the New Testament does not interpret the OT in every case; they interpret each other. The New Testament writers quote the OT extensively to make their points about many issues other than redemption. Regarding eschatology, OT revelation is critical to understanding end time events. But in many cases other than eschatology, the OT interprets the NT.]
9. New Covenant Theology is based upon a redemptive-historical approach to interpreting the Bible, understanding the fulfillment of all of God’s promises in Jesus Christ as they are progressively unfolding from Genesis to Revelation.
[The equation here is simple: making everything about who Jesus is and what He did redemptively, excludes the weighty issue of what Jesus commands us to do. The end game is the exclusion of the Law, or Antinomianism.]
10. New Covenant Theology presumes that the “now-not yet” principle of interpretation is essential to understand the teaching of the NT.
[No comment.]
11. The organic historical connection, and the Christocentric unity that exists between the Old and New Covenants, guarantees the usefulness of the Old Testament for the church.
[But for “showing forth the gospel” only, and not instruction for sanctified, kingdom living.]
12. In the term New Covenant Theology we declare that God, for his own delight, has revealed himself and manifested his glory ultimately in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and his complete and perfect work on the Cross through which he has established a New Covenant in his blood. (Heb. 7:22; 8:6; 9:11; 10:14)
[Though this statement sounds good, why is it necessary to add, “the Person of…”? We all know Christ is a person. This is continually emphasized (the “personhood” of Christ) by NCT advocates for the purpose of promoting a nebulous “intimate relationship” with Christ as opposed to a supposedly imperative based relationship from “mere duty.”]
13. The pinnacle of God’s unfolding revelation comes to us in the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ himself, by the New Testament Scriptures.
[In other words, “the word of God is a person, not an imperative.” “The word of God is a person, not a program to follow.” The word of God is a person, not a cognitive concept,” etc., etc. But when you get people sold on that jingle (the nebulous concept of Jesus’ personhood, rather than an emphasis on what He expects), you can lead people anywhere, and believe me, Bresson does.]
14. The two testaments proclaim the same Christocentric message, but from differing standpoints.
[Where would I even begin to make the case that the Bible does not share Bresson’s comprehensive, unmitigated, Christocentric view? Of course, soteriology is a major part of the Scriptures, but Christ himself presented the Scriptures as His instruction for sanctified living ( Matthew 4:4, 7:24-27).]
15. The New Covenant documents, interpretive of and informed by the Old Covenant documents, are binding for the new people of God until the end of this age.
[This is a disingenuous statement, and one needs to quickly ask: “binding in what way?” Trust me, Bresson doesn’t mean that it is binding for the practice of Godly living. This is indicative of his deceptive double speak.]
paul
Gospel-Driven Counseling Part 3: Clouds Without Water, and Nine Reasons Why “Redemptive” Counseling Can’t Help Troubled Christians
One of Jude’s depictions of false teachers was “clouds without water”(v. 12). Clouds give hope during times of need that the land will finally be revived by rain. Likewise, false teachers appear to offer hope in times of need, but they are actually without the substance to deliver on the promise. Counselors who use the redemptive approach to counseling are not necessarily false teachers, but their approach will not help people; their counseling is clouds without water.
In the first two parts, I used Bill Baldwin’s article published in 1996 to demonstrate how proponents of Gospel Sanctification approach counseling, and will do the same in this post as well. I will make my first point from the following excerpt:
“When I tell a man to change his behavior — and he realizes he must — it is the most natural thing in the world that he should do so by relying on his natural strength and the force of his will. It is therefore essential that the counselor solemnly warn him against such a course.”
Here, we observe two reasons in this statement why redemptive counseling will not help people. First, biblical counseling is not just about outward behavior, but also how counselees think. Biblical counseling calls for a change in thinking (ie., biblical thinking), and behavior also with both being curative. The redemptive approach lumps efforts to change thinking into the same category as behavioral change with the following nomenclature: “change by our own efforts” (which is supposedly wrong). Therefore, an emphasis on biblical thinking (which is very critical) will not be emphasized any more than outward behavior, which, as can be seen by Baldwin’s statement, is devalued to begin with. Another example of lumping biblical thinking together with “teeth gritting, pick yourself up by the bootstraps, legalistic, living by lists and do’s / don’ts,” ect., ect., is Paul David Tripp’s statement in “How People Change”:
“. . . and the Bible does call us to change the way we think about things. But this approach again omits the person and work of Christ as Savior. Instead, it reduces our relationship to Christ to ‘think his thoughts’ and ‘act the way Jesus would act’”(p. 27, 2006 edn).
Notice also in Tripp’s statement that any effort to align our thoughts with the mind of Christ “omits….[the] work of Christ as Savior.” So, any effort on our part in the sanctification process is also likened to efforts to earn salvation. More on that later.
Secondly, as can be ascertained by Baldwin’s statement cited above, redemptive counseling makes a distinction between our work and the Spirit’s work in sanctification; when in fact, the two are seamless (the fruit of the Spirit is self control, Gal. 5:23). Counselors that suggest an either / or in the sanctification process reek havoc and confusion on counselees. To suggest that a counselee may not be walking in the Spirit even when he / she is obeying Scripture, because it may take effort, is to invite unhealthy introspection and mysticism into the counselee’s life. Besides, it’s a blatant contradiction to many verses such as Galatians 6:9. Jay Adams has stated the same concern this way:
“Strangely, there are, today, those who believe that if we do anything to please God, we are acting by ‘the arm of flesh.’ By that they mean we are doing something solely in our own strength. But, by making it an either/or matter, we upset the biblical balance of loving obedience and strengthening grace” (What is Sanctification, Institute for Nouthetic Counseling blog).
These are the first two reasons redemptive counseling will not help troubled Christians – it discourages biblical thinking, and it equates our effort in sanctification with walking in the flesh.
Baldwin continues:
“He has heard the law and glibly said “I will do what it says.” He must know of the holiness of that law and the condemnation declared against all who try to commend themselves to God by lawkeeping. The law must drive him to the gospel of Christ.”
The third reason gospel-driven counseling will not help troubled Christians is because it distorts the biblical relationship of the Law to justification verses sanctification. In other words, redemptive counseling makes no distinction between the two and their relationship to the Law. This can be clearly seen in Baldwin’s above statement: the sole role of the Law is to lead the counselee back to the gospel as before he / she was saved, and not for the purpose of instruction as Paul clearly indicated in 2Timothy 3:16. Likewise, Michael Horton apes Baldwin when he wrote the following:
“The imperatives drive us [Christians (emphasis by underline mine)] to despair of self-rightousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only savior.”
Horton goes on to say in the same article (“Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living”) that an emphasis on deeds (ie., obedience) “leaves the sinner in the tattered garment of fig leaves rather than robed in the righteousness of Christ.” The suggestion by Horton is that efforts at good behavior removes the righteousness of Christ from the believers life.
This is the third reason gospel-centered counseling will not help Christians; because it disavows the instructive value of the Law in the believer’s life.
Baldwin’s next statement will be considered for my next points:
“And that gospel must long be dwelt upon that it may evoke faith — whether for the first time or as a stirring up and a repeated application of a faith already present. Only works that spring out of such a faith constitute the gospel obedience [emphasis mine] held out in Scripture.”
Hence, instead of learning more and more about how to apply God’s imperatives / wisdom to life, and doing so, which is key to a sound Christian life (Matthew 7:24-27), “faith” is supposedly evoked by a continual revisiting of the gospel. Notice that the primary goal is to evoke faith, via the gospel, just like in justification. Therefore, redemptive counseling is the extrapolation of justification moving forward with no recognition of a sanctification that involves a co-laboring of the believer. In essence, it is sanctification by faith alone in the same way that justification is by faith alone, which, and don’t miss this: results in “gospel obedience.” What is gospel obedience? Simply put, it is often referred to as “the imputed active obedience of Christ.” In other words, when we continually revisit the gospel, the same monergistic results of justification are to be expected in sanctification, and therefore, both are a total work of Christ only. Said yet another way, Christ obeys for us. In case you think Baldwin is some isolated crack-pot, consider this quote by Michael Horton:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both” (Christless Christianity, pg. 57).
The following statement by Tullian Tchividjian should also be considered:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that ‘the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth.’ As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day. Once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it. After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day. Since we never leave off sinning, we can never leave the gospel.”
Other extremes of this doctrine can be seen in Horton’s statement that, in essence, synergistic salvation is a false gospel. Therefore, since as Tullian Tchividian notes, a co-laboring in sanctification is the orthodox view among Evangelicals, redemptive counselors will begin their counseling relationship with most counselees by assuming they are lost, and will first focus on converting them to said doctrine. Furthermore, in marriage counseling, if one spouse accepts this doctrine and the other one doesn’t – the counseling will continue (erroneously) with a mixed marriage in view.
Another angle by Paul David Tripp can be added for good measure. On pages 171 and 172 ( starting in the last paragraph on page 171) of “How People Change,” Tripp propagates the idea that we are still spiritually dead as believers and are not an “improved version” of our old selves. Therefore, since Christ is the only one in us that is spiritually alive, we have unlimited potential because it is Christ in us that is doing everything (this, of course, is in blatant contradiction to Ephesians 4:20-24).
In conclusion on these points, the following are further reasons numbering four through eight of why redemptive counseling will not help troubled Christians:
4. It tells the counselee that sanctification is by faith alone in the same way that justification is by faith alone.
5. It tells the counselee that Christ obeys for us.
6. It replaces a deeper knowledge of God’s wisdom and its application to life with a mystical “deeper knowledge of the gospel.”
7. It often assumes that the counselee is not saved for erroneous reasons. This is obviously detrimental to a healthy and productive counseling process.
8. It will misinterpret marriages as mixed for erroneous reasons. This is also detrimental to productive marriage counseling.
Lastly, redemptive counseling presents the counselee with an erroneous picture of how sanctification is experienced. The counselee is told that when Christ is obeying for us, obedience will be experienced as a joyful, unconscious reaction. Note carefully what Baldwin says in the same article:
“If an act does not spring from a conscious exercise of faith stirred up by gospel truth, we can be almost certain the act does not spring unconsciously therefrom. And whatever is not of faith is sin….Give me a man who preaches the law with its terror and Christ with his sweetness and forgets to preach the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and what will result? In two months his parishioners will be breaking down his door begging to be told what behavior their renewed, bursting with joy, hearts may best produce. And when he tells them, they will be surprised (and he will not) to discover that by and large they have produced exactly that.”
Note, according to Baldwin (and likewise, others such as John Piper), true obedience is always joyful and unconscious, even to the point of obeying Scripture without first knowing what it says (because its not us obeying anyway). Should we teach troubled Christians these things? I think not. Besides, it makes a mockery of Matthew 26:37- 42. Obeying God can often be necessarily difficult for many reasons.
Gospel-driven counseling cannot, and will not help troubled Christians. Furthermore, evangelicals have a duty and responsibility to warn other Christians to stay clear of this counsel that promises to give hope, but cannot deliver. This theology and its counselors are clouds without water.
paul
Some Passing Thoughts on Obedience and Sanctification
I miss being able to post daily as I am very busy right now, and am also trying to complete part 3 of a previous post. However, I appreciate comments / questions that come in that enable me to launch from a pre-established basis, affording the time to write a post that I wouldn’t ordinarily have. So, the question and my answer will be the post for today:
“Are we able to know by what means he [the Holy Spirit] helps and enables believers? Specifically, is there a way a believer can somehow avail themselves of the HS’s help to love or otherwise obey? If so, how does one do that?”
It’s many faceted, but it boils down to obedience. By what means? And how? Answer: obey. No matter how passive one’s view of sanctification is, you always have to do something; and trust me, knowing us, no matter how minuet it is, we will have to eventually do it whether we feel like it or not. Even if you buy into Piper’s theology that we will do it because it is our delight, our tendency is to always want to be delighted, so we will have to obey and go to work (or something our wife has wanted us to do, for like, 5 years) instead of reading our Bible all day long as a way of “beholding as a way of becoming” (Let me just stop here and share: nobody annoys me more than John Piper).
Ok, get ready to be really offended. But after I say what I am going to say to answer your above question, let me also say that I am in good company and will quote RC Sproul from his book “Pleasing God” to dampen some of the indignation. Here we go: the Holy Spirit helps those who help themselves. O my, anymore, you say that to people and the blood vessels start popping out in their necks. However, I would probably rather state it this way: the HS manifests His power as we walk according to truth. All in all, I think your question is best answered by James in 1:25 – blessings are IN (a preposition explaining where) the DOING.
Well, at the very least, let me be burned at the stake with RC Sproul: “Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point” (“Pleasing God” p. 227).
I heard something amazing from Rush Limbaugh the other day. The Russians supposedly prove to their school children that there is no God by presenting two potted plants; they then tell the children to water one on a regular basis, but only pray for the other plant’s growth. While one should not be surprised that such reasoning comes from reprobate minds, at least such a test recognizes that the one plant will surely die without water, unlike many of the sanctification paradigms of our day.
I don’t think anybody explains this better than the apostle Paul in 1Corintians 3: 5-9;
“What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.”
paul
leave a comment