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 Sanctification Counseling: Part 2
“By ‘walking in the Spirit,’ Baldwin means walking in the gospel. The prior means to walk according to scriptural truth while the latter means to understand the gospel more deeply, resulting in Jesus obeying for us.”
See full article here: http://goo.gl/Hli7
The Church’s Primary Foe Has Always Been Antinomianism, and Always Will be: Not Legalism
“Please note: the forte of the antichrist will not be legalism, but rather lawlessness.”
In Phil Johnson’s “The History of Heresy: Five Errors that Refuse to Die” he says the following in the introduction: “In this seminar, we will look at five major heresies that have plagued the church again and again throughout history. Here are the five heretical groups we’ll talk about: the Judaizers, the Gnostics, the Arians, the Pelagians, and the Socinians.” Johnson’s thesis is that most heresies throughout church history fit into one of these five, or a combination thereof.
First on his list is by far the most recognized, legalism (Judaizers): “The apostles’ war with legalism permeates the book of Acts and most of the epistles.” Though this is somewhat true, the following is more accurate: heresies that promote disobedience; namely, antinomian type heresies, dwarf legalism throughout the Scriptures. The Bible begins with a deception that led to disobedience (Eve in the garden, Genesis 3:1-19), and ends accordingly ( Revelation 20:7-10). The Scriptures are also saturated with accounts of the same heretical endeavor between Genesis and Revelation.
In fact, legalistic heresies are barely mentioned in the Old Testament, if at all, and really don’t occupy that much of the New Testament, especially when compared to Antinomianism. By the way, in contrast to the popular myth of our day, the Lord’s contention with the Pharisees was not legalism, but rather replacing God’s Law with their own traditions which led to a disregard for the Law: “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5: 19 ESV). Rather than “break” (KJV), to modify, relax (ESV), dissolve, or melt is a better rendering, and this is exactly what the Pharisees did by mixing God’s Law with their traditions (Matthew 15:3-9).
The following excerpt does a good job of explaining what Antinomianism is, and how much this subject is spoken of in Scripture:
SO WHAT’S IT MEAN?
‘Antinomian’ is pronounced [an-ta-nome´-ee-ann]. The word itself can be traced back to the Greek of the New Testament. It comes from putting two Greek words together: `anti (anti) and nomos (nomos). The first word “anti” taken by itself means, “over against or instead of”, and corresponds to our English word “anti”, which means “opposed to”.
The second half of the word ‘Antinomian’, which is the word “nomos”, means: (1) a law, rule, standard; (2) a rule of life or moral conduct. This is the same word that is translated “law” in “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”-KJV. Rom. 3:31. Consequently, when these two Greek words are combined, it gives the meaning: lawlessness; without, opposed to or against laws, standards, or rules of moral conduct.
IS ‘ANTINOMIAN’ A BIBLE WORD?
Yes, it most certainly is (in the Greek Language, that is). It can be found in the following form 25 times throughout the New Testament. This time it again comes from taking the Greek word “nomos”, but prefixing it with the negative particle “a” to give the Greek word “anomos”. The Greek word “nomos” was previously defined as: a law, rule, standard; a rule of life or moral conduct. When the negative article “a” is prefixed to it, the exact same meaning as our English word ‘Antinomian’ is derived. The Greek translation for this New Testament word is: lawlessness; the condition of being without law; having contempt for law.
It is usually translated (Strongs # 458, 459) using vague words like ‘iniquity’, ‘wicked’, ‘unrighteousness’ or ‘transgressor’ (in the Authorized Version-KJV). It’s even more vague in all the newer translations. Only 6 times was it clearly translated (KJV) as ‘without law’, ‘lawless’, etc., in 3 verses only. However, understanding this word’s true meaning, brings new meaning and clarity to all verses that contain it. Even though it is found translated ‘iniquity in Matt. 7:23, the words ‘Antinomian’ or ‘lawlessness’ could rightfully be put there instead. It would then read, starting at verse 21, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work “lawlessness” (Antinomianism).
Other verses that condemn Antinomians to hell are: “The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do ‘Antinomian(ism)‘.” “And because ‘Antinomians‘ shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with ‘Antinomians‘? and what communion hath light with darkness?” “For the mystery of ‘Antinomian(ism)’ doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all ‘Antinomian(ism)’, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good work (Matt.13:41; Matt. 24:12; 2 Cor. 6:14; 2 Thess. 2:7; Titus 2:14) [ see full article: goo.gl/hkoP ].
Therefore, though legalism is a big problem, the constant representation of legalism as the primary foe of the church is unmerited and misleading, and is often a ploy by the Antinomians themselves. Church history would agree with this as well. The apostle Paul said the mystery of Antinomianism was already at work during his time, and would be culminated by the appearing of the sultan of Antinomianism, the antichrist, or who he called the “lawless one” ( 2Thess. 2:7-12). Likewise, the apostle John said that in his time “many antichrists have come” and “antichrist is coming” (1John 2:18). John also said this is how we know that we are in the last age; it will be dominated by a spirit of lawlessness (1John 2:26- 3:10). In addition, Christ said the last days will be earmarked by cold hearts resulting from “lawlessness” (Matthew 24:12). Interesting, cold hearts don’t cause lawlessness; cold hearts are “because” of lawlessness. Something to think about. Please note: the forte of the antichrist will not be legalism, but rather lawlessness. And the present handy-work of his minions does not result in a climate of legalism, but rather lawlessness. This is undoubtedly what Samuel Rutherford had in mind when he entitled his treatise against Antinomianism, “A Survey of Spiritual Antichrist.”
Never the less, the thinking of the contemporary church is that Antinomianism is not the primary threat to the church’s purity. A few contemporary, and well noted teachers such as AW Tozar would disagree: “Fundamental Christianity in our times is deeply influenced by that ancient enemy of righteousness, Antinomianism” ( AW Tozar: “Paths to Power” WingSpread, 1964 ). Indeed, it seems that the mentality of our day is that Antinomainism disappeared after the great Antinomian controversies of the 17th century. Church historians such as Tim Cooper have downplayed that controversy (and the Antinomian threat in general) by asserting that Richard Baxter, Samuel Rutherford, and others less notable, greatly exaggerated the threat (Tim Cooper: “Richard Baxter and Antinomianism” University of Cantebury, 1997). Of course, this is very unlikely when we consider what the apostles taught regarding lawlessness. It seems clear that the threat began in a significant way (the mystery of lawlessness) when Christ appeared, marking the beginning of the “last age” (Heb. 1:2), and will presumably increase with intensity until the “lawless one” appears. Therefore, we should expect that Antinomianism is very much alive and well in our present time as well as in times past.
In the great Antinomian controversy of the 17th century, Richard Baxter and Samuel Rutherford took no prisoners and named names. The names were Robert Towne, William Dell, John Eaton, Tobias Crisp, John Traske, and John Saltmarsh. Like the Antinomians of our day, these men fiercely objected to the charge, but Baxter and Rutherford were not swayed, and Saltmarsh became a favorite target of Baxter till the end of his (Baxter’s) ministry. JC Ryle mentions this controversy in his “20 Letters on Holiness” which was Ryle’s own response to the Antinomian influences of his day in the 19th century.
Without a doubt, the most distinguishing mark of Antinomians in the past and present is the synthesizing of justification and sanctification. James Durham said the following in regard to this point: “In some respects an opposite error to Popery, …the Antinomians … make all sanctification to be justification …” Tim Cooper, in the above cited dissertation, said this: “The Antinomians accepted that the Law should be preached to sinners, and both sides agreed that it played no part in the justification of those sinners, but the Antinomians refused to grant it a role in their sanctification” (p. 63). Another way of stating it would be “sanctification by faith alone,” just like justification is by faith alone. AW Tozar said the following in describing the Antinomian position: “What we do cannot matter as long as we believe rightly. The divorce between creed and conduct is absolute and final. The question of sin is settled by the Cross; conduct is outside the circle of faith and cannot come between the believer and God. Such in brief, is the teaching of the Antinomian.” JC Ryle said this in contending against the Antinomians of his day:
“It is thoroughly Scriptural and right to say “faith alone justifies.” But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say “faith alone sanctifies.” The saying requires very large qualification. Let one fact suffice. We are frequently told that a man is “justified by faith without the works of the law,” by St. Paul. But not once are we told that we are “sanctified by faith without the deeds of the law.” On the contrary, we are expressly told by St. James that the faith whereby we are visibly and demonstratively justified before man, is a faith which “if it has not works is dead, being alone” ( James 2:17).
How Antinomians have attempted to make this all fit together is varied, but necessarily accompanied by doublespeak and nuanced language because many of them throughout history have been, and are presently joined at the hip with orthodox Christianity. Such was the case with Dell, Towne, Saltmarsh et al. Tim Cooper, while downplaying the threat of Antinomianism during the 17th century controversy, had this to say in regard to the Antinomians of that day:
“Yet it is not at all clear that this is what the Antinomians actually taught, and the confusion is not helped by their own ambiguity. For example, Robert Towne denied the law any place in sanctification, [by our efforts] while at the same time affirming “the use of the Morall Law to true beleevers. For it keeps them close in spirit and conscience through faith unto Christs righteousnesse” [In other words, it shows them what Christ did, or “Christs rightousnesse” in fulfilling the Law for us, since we are unable]. It was not the only place where he agreed that the law should be preached to believers, but his point was finely nuanced. “I wish that 1 be not mistaken, for 1 never deny the Law to be an etemall and inviolable Rule of Righteousness [ours? Or merely the “rule” itself?]: but yet affirme that its the Grace of the Gospel which effectually and truely confirmeth us thereunto” [Yes, because Christ also came (supposedly) to obey for us as well, and impute His obedience to us so that we don’t have to obey; this is considered to be part of the gospel by Antinomians]. Towne asserted that the law should be preached to believers because it set out the standard of righteousness, not forgetting that only the gospel of grace could ever bring the Christian to attain it. It was, perhaps, a subtlety that was lost on his opponents “(p.64) [not really, they knew what he was really saying].
Likewise, JC Ryle had this to say about the double-speaking Antinomians of his day:
“I may be told, in reply, that no one of course means to disparage ‘works’ as an essential part of a holy life. It would be well, however, to make this more plain then many seem to make it in these days.”
I do not believe that there has ever been a time in church history where the Dells and Townes have been missing, but in our day, the Baxters and the Ryles are nowhere to be found.
paul
What Really Happened at Coral Ridge: Heavy-Handed Leadership is Part of the Gospel Sanctification Mystique
I have plowed through massive amounts of data / articles regarding the Coral Ridge Presbyterian split / controversy, and wow, what a gargantuan mass of theories, opinions, and “he said – she said.” But what happened at Coral Ridge is really very simple, and is being played out throughout the country on a continual basis. Actually, in all the information I consumed, the crux of the matter can be boiled down to a few excerpts.
First, the key to understanding what happened there is the theology of the new pastor, Tullian Tchividjian, hereafter referred to as “TT” (who in the world would ever name their child Tullian Tchividjian?). TT is a proponent of Gospel Sanctification, hereafter referred to as “GS.” One writer refuted an accusation against TT (by one person in the small group of dissenters who tried to have him expelled as the pastor) that he has a distorted view of the gospel. But in supposedly refuting that, he quotes TT as saying the following:
“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.”
In this quote, we see the theology of GS and why it caused big trouble at Coral Ridge. Notice that TT says plainly that he has come to a scriptural understanding of the gospel that “the vast majority of professing Christians” don’t share. Think about that statement, I mean really think about it. He is saying that he was once among “the vast majority of *professing* [that word is no accident] Christians” who HAVE THE GOSPEL WRONG! This is the mentality of GS proponents: they think they are on the cutting edge of a reformation that is saving Evangelicalism from a false gospel. What else can be surmised from this statement?
As a result, leaders in the GS movement do not intend to play nicely with papal minions of the Synergistic Dark Age, and they routinely kick butt and take names. The pattern is the same: new pastors assume leadership in a church that doesn’t know what GS is, and the church takes it for granted that their theology is orthodox. Then once in, they replace present leadership with those of like mind, and begin to make vast and rapid changes because they see that church as a bastion of falsehood. Then, dissenters are mercilessly mowed down and muzzled, usually via church discipline.
In all cases, the dissenters don’t have a full understanding of what they are dealing with, they just know something isn’t right. I saw this exact same GS pattern play out in a church in Dayton, Ohio, and it’s also exactly what happened at Coral Ridge. My thoughts on this were confirmed by a telephone interview with a person involved with the protesters at Coral Ridge. However, the particular church in Dayton didn’t have the ecclesiastical safeguards afforded Presbyterians, and some dissenting members actually fled to other states because of the intensity of the backlash from the GS leadership, and trust me, I’m not exaggerating. Other Christians have told me that their leaders simply refuse to discuss the issue with them, rightly observing that there is no premise for agreement when one party holds to a grammatical view of interpretation verses redemptive.
Before I move on, some of what I am saying here can be seen in the letter that Coral Ridge dissenters issued to the rest of the congregation in an attempt to have TT removed as their pastor: http://blackandwhiteministries.blogspot.com/2009/07/founding-pastors-daughter-raises-mutiny.html
In conclusion, much of the GS doctrine can be seen in TT’s statement if one observes closely and believes that words mean things. Instead of moving on to “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded,” we are supposed to move “more deeply” into the gospel. GS teaches that a deeper focus on the gospel results in Christ obeying biblical imperatives for us. TT has also insinuated this in other statements. You can also see the GS element of continual redemption (or the idea that Christians are continually re-saved) in this part of his statement:
“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” [then what do you do with John 13:8-10 ?].
Furthermore, the gospel is monergistic, so if we are sanctified by the gospel, that means we can do no more to be sanctified than we could do to be justified. Therefore, GS can be nothing more than a *let go and let God* theology. Also, the relationship or role of the Law would be the same, making it an Antinomian doctrine. Not being obligated to keep the Law or completely unable is the same difference.
paul
Charles Stanley now Embracing Antinomian Distortion of Galatians 2:20
As I was driving down the road this afternoon I was delighted to hear “In Touch” with Dr. Charles Stanley. Yes, I know, there has always been some issues with Stanley, but I still enjoy listening to him. However, I was a bit surprised to hear what he had to say during his “Stages of Our Christian Life” series. If I remember correctly, he was on stage seven, the stage where we supposedly realize the significance of, and here we go again, Galatians 2:20.
Stanley then proceeded to exegete this verse in the same way others of our day do; namely, contemporary Antinomians such as David Powlison, Paul David Tripp, Tim Keller, Justin Taylor, Tim Lane, John Piper, Micheal Horton, DA Carson, Tullian Tchividjian, and Jerry Bridges, to name a few. JC Ryle called it the “Christ in us doctrine,” and such Antinomiam doctrines of his day prompted him to write his “Twenty Letters on Holiness.” I go into this in some detail here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-lW
Basically, the doctrine teaches that we (believers) are still dead in trespasses and sins, and that the only life in us is the indwelling Christ who obeys for us, since we are “dead and can do nothing” (Paul Tripp, “How People Change” 2006). Galatians 2:20 can be interpreted that way via a cursory observation. Stanley clearly stated during the message I heard that the only life in us is Christ. To some degree that is true, but the fact is overstated in a way that refutes the biblical truth that we are “new creatures” and “born again” unto spiritual life. Some proponents of the doctrine, also known as Gospel Sanctification, even promote the idea that we are re-saved on a continual bases because our spiritual condition is no different than our spiritual condition prior to salvation (totally depraved).
Stanley went on to say that this “truth” is liberating because we can finally cease from putting forth effort in the sanctification process. That’s what he plainly said. He shared what his thoughts were after embracing this “truth” and seeing their church building for the first time afterward: “Lord, I don’t have to do anything to build this ministry, you do it all.” Furthermore, Stanley then explained that Christians don’t have to put forth any effort to obey God, but rather passively “yield” to God’s truth / power. JC Ryle contended against this exact same element of “yielding” in the “Christ in us” doctrine, and objected to this concept as a replacement for exertion by us in the sanctification process.
I address this doctrine as it is being taught by those mentioned above in the following post: http://wp.me/pmd7S-jQ
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
7 comments