So, When Did New Calvinism Hijack Westminster? And…
I own a couple of online bookstores and enjoy reading some of the older Christian books. As I was entering books the other day, I picked one up from the stack entitled “The Infallible Word” written by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, the one in Philadelphia. The book is a real keeper; It is in very good condition, and is the third revision of a symposium on the doctrine of Scripture. It was written in 1946, and the third revision (the copy I have) was printed in 1967. The forward is written by Dr. M. Lloyd Jones. Apparently, the contributors are from the Westminster faculty of that time (1946) as follows: John Murray; Edward Young; N.B. Stonehouse; John Skelton; Paul Wooley; R.B. Kuiper; Cornelius Van Til.
As Dr. Masters of the Metropolitan has noted, New Calvinism’s claim of historical precedent is far from impressive. And as others have noted, New Covenant Theology (which is joined at the hip with New Calvinism) was probably conceived at Westminster around 1980. So, when I picked up the next data entry and realized what it was, my first thought was, “this should be interesting.” Yes, especially with Paul Wooley stating in the Preface: “It continues to be our conviction that this is the basic position of the divines who made up the Westminster Assembly which convened in 1643…”
There is no room here to state all of the glaring contradictions between Old Calvinism and New Calvinism provoked by the reading of this book, but I will rather focus on what New Calvinism and its tenets (NCT, Gospel Sanctification, Heart Theology, Christian Hedonism, and Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics) should stand on, or fall: its view of Scripture.
First, the faculty didn’t share New Calvinism’s Christocentric view of Scripture. Their view of Scripture was very similar to traditional Evangelicalism, which is disdained by proponents of New Calvinism. Before I continue, I might also add that Geerhardus Vos and his Biblical Theology is not once mentioned in the book, or if it is, I certainly missed it, and he (Vos) definitely appears nowhere in the index of names. Instead of “gospel” being used to refer to Scripture (actually, I remember “gospel” being used once, maybe twice, in the whole book), the term that all faculty members used throughout the book to describe Scripture, seemingly on every page, was “the objective divine authority.” Throughout the book, the emphasis was *objective authority* NOT *gospel narrative.* John Murray states the following on page 29:
“It is precisely in this estimation of the Scriptures and in such illusion to them, as not only prophetic of what took place in the fullness of time but also as having direct bearing upon the most practical and abiding of Christian duties, that the New Testament abounds.”
Got that? The Scriptures are not only about what took place in “the fullness of time” (ie., the gospel), but “also” have a “direct bearing” on practical Christian “duties.” To the New Calvinist, this statement is barley less than heresy. Furthermore, *obedience* to the *authority* of Scripture is a constant theme throughout the book. N.B. Stonehouse further elaborates on page 99:
“It is our conviction that the idea of canonicity has meaning and validity only if Christian theism, the theism of the Bible, is true. Implicit in the idea of a divinely authoritative Scripture is the thought of God as self-existent and self sufficient, the creator and ruler of the universe. His works necessarily constitute a disclosure of his mind and purpose.”
Not only does this make my prior point, but introduces another: this is a far cry from John Piper’s Christocentric assertion that God “entered history through the works of Christ.” No, redemption entered history as a disclosure of God’s mind and purpose. This leaves room for other things God may want to disclose about Himself, obviously. And this was also the position of the Westminster faculty. In fact, Edward Young attributes Luke 24:44 to the idea that Christ was speaking only of those scriptures that He prophetically and historically fulfilled, not New Calvinism’s idea that all Scripture is Christicentric. Here is what he said on page 61:
“What, however is meant by Christ’s use of the word “psalms”? Did he thereby intend to refer to all the books in the third division of the canon, or did he merely have in mind the book of Psalms itself? The latter alternative, we think, is probably correct. Christ singled out the book of Psalms, it would appear, not so much because it was the best known and most influential book of the third division, but rather because in the Psalms there were many predictions about himself. This was the Christological book, par excellence, of the third division of the Old Testament canon.
Most of the books of this third division do not contain direct messianic prophesies. Hence, if Christ had used a technical designation to indicate this third division, he would probably have weakened his argument to a certain extent. But by the reference to the Psalms he directs the minds of his hearers immediately to that particular book in which occur the greater number of references to himself.”
Hence, in the estimation of the Westminster faculty during that time, the whole Bible isn’t a “Christological book, par excellence,” as it is more than fair to say of the New Calvinist mantra, but only the Psalms, which is a “particular” book having a “greater number of references” to himself. “Greater number” of…, obviously implies that their view wasn’t in alignment with a comprehensive soteriology, but rather the latter being among other revelations of God’s will and character, although a major theme.
Secondly, along the lines of Scripture, the faculty did not share the New Calvinist / NCT view that Christ came to abolish the Old Testament Law by fulfilling it, but rather fulfilled it to FURTHER ESTABLISH ITS AUTHORITY. John Murray makes this clear on pages 20 and 21 while commenting on Matthew 5:17-19;
“ The word ‘destroy’ (kataluo) is particularly significant. It means to abrogate, to demolish, to disintegrate, to annul or, as J.A. Alexander points out, ‘the destruction of the whole by the complete separation of its parts, as when a house is taken down by being taken to pieces.’ His emphatic denial of any such purpose in reference to either the law or the prophets means that the discharge of his messianic mission leaves the law and the prophets intact. He utters, however, not only this emphatic denial but also adds the positive purpose of his coming – he came to fulfill, to complete. And so his work with reference to both law and prophets is completory, not destructive. He who can speak in the immediately succeeding context with such solemn asseveration and imperious authority brings all that is involved in such asseveration and authority to bear upon the confirmation of the abiding validity, stability, and authority of both law and prophets. And not only so, but he also grounds his own mission and task upon such permanent validity, and defines his work in terms of fulfillment of all that the law and the prophets provided.”
Murray states here that Christ’s mission was grounded in the permanent authority of the law and the prophets. Could there be a more antithetical statement in regard to New Covenant Theology?
Lastly, Stonehouse makes it clear what the Westminster faculty believed in regard to a centrality of Scripture on page 107:
“ To put the matter in concrete and specific terms, Christianity began as a religion of a divine book, as a religion of authority which definitely acknowledged a book as an objective expression of the divine mind and will. Were it not that so many modern writers have approached the study of the New Testament cannon with the assumption that Christianity is basically not a religion of authority but a religion of “the spirit,” it would hardly seem necessary to emphasize the point that the idea of an inscripturated canon, far from being uncongenial to Christianity, forms an integral element of the Christian faith from the beginning of its life.”
While this statement makes my aforementioned point, let me also ask: what is more indicative of New Calvinism than the claim that it promotes “the spirit” over the authority of Scripture? The Westminster faculty of that time even cautioned against the truth / tension of the illuminating Spirit being set against objective authority: “This doctrine of the inward witness of the Spirit does not sacrifice the objective authority of the Scriptures, as often maintained” (p.101).
Do I have to try to carry all of the water here? Somebody help me out. It seems that these guys (as I gather from my reading) were definitely Covenant theologians. But there is no way that the movers and shakers at the present-day Westminster Seminary are of Covenant Theology. If you believe that, I would like to tell that this book is personally autographed by Van Til with a gel pen, and it can be yours for a modest price of say, 200 bucs. You can’t separate New Calvinism from NCT / Gospel Sanctification, they are joined at the hip. What’s going on over there? It looks like a hijacking to me, and when did it happen? And how do these guys get away with pretending to be on the same par with Westminster tradition? I’m just asking.
paul
Straight From the Antinomian’s Own Mouth: What is New Covenant Theology? Part 7; The “Newfangled” Fifteen
Like the Antinomianism of the 19th century, the contemporary version of our day, primarily expressed in New Covenant Theology, is fraught with the same kind of “newfangled phraseology” that JC Ryle complained about. Ryle’s complaint is worth another look before we proceed:
“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”
Likewise, NCT is not without its own newfangled phraseology. There are primarily fifteen:
1. Rich Typology: It’s so rich, that it doesn’t read like typology, but rather seems to be literal, being so “rich.” Example; “Israel” doesn’t really mean “Israel,” but is always a reference to Christ. God’s word really doesn’t mean “word,” or “Law,” but is also 100% synonymous with “the person of Christ who personifies the Law.” This typology is sooooo rich, that even though Proverbs personifies “wisdom” as a woman, that’s still speaking of Christ also. Wow, now that’s really rich.
2. In-Lawed in Christ: The Law is completely fulfilled in Christ because, He obeyed it perfectly. Therefore, we have no need to obey it, nor does it have any role in sanctification.
3. Deep Repentance: The process in which heart idols are discovered by evaluating desires that the idols produce. When we repent of specific idols, it empties our hearts and leaves a void that is filled by Christ, who then obeys for us.
4. New Obedience: The result of deep repentance – Christ obeys for us.
5. Progressive Sanctification: Ongoing justification, which isn’t a one time act, but is continually applied to us as needed. Some advocates of NCT acknowledge a daily “re-saving.” Paul Tripp says that Christians need a “daily rescue,” and cites Romans 7: 24.
6. Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics: Invented by the liberal theologian Johann Philipp in the 17th century and further developed by Geerhardus Vos. It makes NCT possible by supplying a prism that will always yield redemptive concepts from the text.
7. Christian Hedonism: Invented by John Piper in 1980. He believes that people are driven by their desires. Therefore, change the desires and you change the behavior. Piper believes that we can only change our desires by meditating on the glory of Christ as seen in the Bible. He also believes that biblical imperatives only serve to make us dependant on Christ and cherish Him more, because we are powerless to keep the Law. He cites Romans 6:17 to make this point, and believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sin.
8. The Imperative Command is Grounded in the Indicative Event: All biblical imperatives illustrate the work of Christ, not anything God expects us to do. As Paul Tripp states it: All biblical commands must be seen in their “gospel context.” If that’s not Antinomianism, what is?
10. Good Repentance: Repenting of good works, or anything we try to do in “our own efforts” as opposed to yielding to Christ and allowing Him to obey for us. Paul Tripp says this will result in “new and surprising fruit.” Tim Keller also suggests that repenting of good works is an essential part of a saving profession. As these people continue to pontificate such lunacy, nobody blinks and they are continually supplied with credibility by the who’s who of the Evangelical community, such as John MacArthur and RC Sproul.
11. The Apostle’s Hermeneutic: A supposed pattern of interpretation that’s patterned after RHH. However, despite numerous challenges from various writers, NCT proponents have never been able to articulate it.
13. New Calvinism: The expression of NCT and all of its tenets; Heart Theology, Gospel Sanctification, Christian Hedonism, and the Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic.
14. Word Pictures: If your pastor starts using this phraseology, it’s a red flag. The insinuation is that the Bible writers were writing a gospel narrative / novel / story rather than a document containing specific ideas / instruction to be drawn from the text by evaluating grammatical construction and historical context.
15. What does that look like? If your leaders start using this phraseology, again, it’s a red flag. It’s an attempt to eradicate the implication that Christians are supposed to participate in the verb world. Instead of: “what should we do?” It’s: “what does that look like when Jesus is doing it for us?”
I don’t suppose this newfangled 15 would arouse any suspicions among God’s people, for I fear that we also “look like” another complaint leveled by JC Ryle:
“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.”
paul
From the Antinomian’s Own Mouth: What is New Covenant Theology? Part 6; Bresson’s Gospel According to Green Grass and Dinosaurs
“The Vos hermeneutic is new, disregards the plain sense of textual content, contains pagan philosophy, and in reality, is just plain goofy.”
Bresson, while pretending to be a friend of the Creation Museum, actually has a problem with it. What would that be? In his mind, and many other proponents of NCT, the Creation Museum projects the “unfortunate” idea that Scripture contains subject matter other than “the gospel.” So, Bresson wrote an article to set the record straight. In the article, he insinuates that the designers built the Creation Museum with a predominate “Redemptive Historical” theme in mind. The administrators of the Creation Museum then unwittingly republished the article on their website.
I am going to re-post my review of the article here because it contains further information on NCT, and especially its hermeneutic, or interpretive prism. My review can be read in full here:
paul
Latter-Day Church Reality
What’s wrong with you? “You seem to struggle with being content.” “Well, there’s no such thing as a perfect church,” “Are you one of those ‘heresy hunters?’” “You aren’t a ‘church-hopper’ are you?” “Nobody else has a problem with what your talking about; maybe you should take a deeper look at your own heart.” “Come now brother, you act like there’s a false teacher behind every bush.”
If your a zealous Christian with a deep love for the truth, the above statements might sound familiar to you, but it just might be that the trouble isn’t in your set (or head). It took several years for the following to sink into my head: if one takes Scripture seriously, we must believe that solid New Testament churches will be the exception in our day, and not the norm. In fact, the big question is not where to find a “good” church, but rather what to do, and how to think about the fact that such churches will be extremely rare in our day. Julia Duin took a stab at it in her book, “Quitting Church: Why the Faithful Are Fleeing and What to Do about it.” I think her book describes the symptoms well and offers a reasonable solution to the problem. More on that in my close.
First, I must believe that any mentality that fosters the idea that “there are many good churches out there, but you have to find them,” couldn’t be true. Why? Because the coming of Christ and His ascension marks an “age” that will be characterized by an unprecedented attack on the truth unrivaled in all of redemptive history. I delve into this in detail in the following post: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/an-apostolic-call-to-discernment-in-the-%E2%80%9Clast-days%E2%80%9D/
Christ said the following in Luke 18:8, “…when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” In the very beginning of the New Testament age, all-out warfare between truth and error was a raging fire, mostly WITHIN the church. Almost all of the New Testament books are primarily written to address doctrinal error / heresy WITHIN the church, or address that problem as a secondary issue. The only exception I can think of is Philemon. Furthermore, it is clear that looking forward historically, the apostles made it clear that the problem would only get worse: “while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2Timothy 3:13). Also, the apostle Paul warned Timothy, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine” (2Timothy 4:2,3). Got that? Men will not TOLERATE sound doctrine in the last days; and again, I think the apostle is talking about men within the the church. And with bad doctrine comes the usual results:
“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them” (2Timothy 3:1-5).
Paul said the times would be “terrible,” and I have to believe that the Holy Spirit isn’t given to exaggeration. Frankly, when you consider the mindset of today’s church in regard to the sufficiency of Scripture, what could be more descriptive than “having a form of godliness but denying its power”? Forget biblical counseling for serious life problems, its been replaced with Church-in-a-Bottle and Saint Sigmund. Without getting sidetracked further, I might also mention Peter’s description of the latter-day characteristic regarding eschatology (2Peter 3:3-10). The church’s disdain for last things has become very prevalent, especially in this decade.
However, this isn’t the picture we are coming to grips with in our day. We don’t want to think about how bad it really is when the kingdom of darkness has been perfecting its trade for 2000 years. The apostle Paul was consumed with defending the truth on every front, and warned that false teachers would increase, not decrease; and again, that was 2000 years ago!
But there’s hope. The manual for doing church right hasn’t gone anywhere; the truth still waits for all who will follow. Julia Duin seemed to advocate home churches that aren’t constrained by church hierarchies. Perhaps, but I do think new churches that have the right biblical goals are a good solution to the problem. I also think that such churches will have to remember the following: the kingdom of darkness will seek to snuff them out early on; where there is life, there is CHANGE; the Bible must be the final authority on EVERYTHING, and; a hermeneutic used for interpretation of the Scripture must be known and agreed upon. The problem is huge, but God never leaves his children without remedy.
paul
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
5 comments