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
From the Antinomian’s Own Mouth: What is New Covenant Theology? Part 4; Living in a Narrative
Before I move on to part five which is Bresson’s NCT tenets on “Law,” let me take you into one more creepy interlude. NCT has no practical application for life or counseling; therefore, that void will be filled with abundant creepiness. Once again, I will reference one of Bresson’s readers to make a point.
In response to one of Bresson’s articles ( Abigail post dated 8/6/2008) promoting the idea that using Old Testament historical accounts for life lessons (or instruction) is misguided (a blatant rejection of many Scriptures like Nehemiah 13:25-27 and 1 Corinthians 10:6,11), a reader asked the following:
“I do have a question concerning ‘practical application’, you seem to diss it in the post (because it takes away from the central purpose). I am presently counseling a depressed person and I’m using Phil. 4:4-9. The passage seems to promises wonderful things for those who replace worry with right prayer and erroneous thoughts with true thoughts; namely, that Christ will guard our hearts and minds. Is this approach an improper use of the Scriptures, being practical application?”
Seems like a pretty straight forward question requiring a simple yes or no answer. But Bresson, obviously provoked by the question, responds with another post of 4800 words (Abigail post dated 8/14/2008) in an attempt to answer the readers question, because he couldn’t simply say, “yes, from the NCT perceptive, this kind of practical application of the Scriptures is improper.”
But the 4800 word “answer” led the reader to conclude the following:
“It seems that our primary concern is focus on the glory of Christ and the knowledge of him. This will produce the imperatives naturally. Also, history is still moving toward the return of Christ, by putting ourselves *into* the text, we recognize that we are the ongoing redemptive work of Christ, that didn’t end with the Scriptures. The Scriptures enable us to be part of the history. We are not making our own redemptive history, it is making us. We are between the beginning and the end, but all we need to identify with in Christ is bound in the Scriptures.”
Let me try to unravel that for you. It is the belief that the Bible is a meta-narrative (grand gospel narrative) that interprets our own spiritual life, which is also a predetermined narrative on a microcosmic scale. Therefore, all of reality is encompassed in the grand gospel narrative, or “Christ,” or “the gospel” (see Bresson’s NCT tenet # 1, as well as many other of his tenets in parts one and two). Therefore, the Bible produces a prismatic narrative in which to “see” our own life and interpret it via the gospel. When we understand, “see,” or interpret our life accordingly, it leads to “properly informed” spiritual outcomes, or what Bresson calls a “mere natural flow” regarding obedience, which isn’t obedience at all, but merely watching what Christ has already done for us in the constant unveiling of the “organic” gospel narrative.
So, we are to place ourselves into the narrative; and any attempt on our part to exert effort by following cognitive ideas from the Bible is an attempt to create our own narrative apart from God. Said by Bresson another way in his 4800 word reply: good preaching doesn’t take the text to the parishioner (ie., biblical principles to be learned and applied to life by the believer), but takes the believer to the text. This NCT concept, among many other antinomian / mystic ideas, was also presented by Paul David Tripp in “How People Change” when he said: “The big picture model [historical – redemptive] is the story of every believer. God invites us to enter into the plot!” (page 94). Tripp separates the grand gospel narrative (the Bible) into four categories: Heat, Thorns, Cross, and Fruit, which better enables believers to see where they fit into the grand narrative (supposedly).
In the midst of Bresson’s conversation with the first inquisitor, another reader asked Bresson where he could get more information on living life as a “divine drama.” Bresson replied with the following:
“If you’re interested in how we fit into the redemptive-historical *drama* :-), a couple of books that have interesting thoughts in this regard are Vanhoozer’s “Drama of Doctrine” and Horton’s “Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama”.
I don’t agree with everything they have to say, but I did find what they had to say about “participation”, “drama”, and Christ’s Incarnation to be thought-provoking. There are thoughts there compatible with what we’ve said here.”
Regarding the first reader, here is what Bresson had to say about the person’s aforementioned response:
“It looks like you’re understanding what I’ve said (a minor miracle, I know). I’ll get to your other questions shortly.”
There is no confusion of semantics or misunderstanding here, NCT is fraught with antinomian mysticism, and frankly, I find the Evangelical community’s willingness to associate with its proponents sickening.
paul
From the Antinomian’s Own Mouth: What is New Covenant Theology? Part 3; Creepy Interlude
Before I move on to part 4, I wanted to interject the following exchange that took place between one of Chad Bresson’s readers and himself regarding the article I mention in both part one and two, “The Word of God is a Person.” It should help make some of my points, and thanks to the reader who sent it to me yesterday. I find Bresson’s NCT representation of God’s word chilling, and just plain creepy. My third party comments are in brackets.
Reader:
Psalm 119 – nearly every verse – is that referring to Christ and not the word of God (which was called law, oracles, etc.) at that time.
Heb. 4:12 – Is this also referring to Christ and not the words of the Bible?
Bresson:
The rich typology that organically connects redemptive history says it’s “both/and”, not “either/or”. The new was anticipated and foreshadowed in the old.
[“Rich typology” is an eisegesis hermeneutic. Bresson uses this hermeneutic to then say Psalms isn’t really saying what it is saying. Hence, the grave danger NCT poses to the spiritual welfare of those seeking truth.]
John 1:1 tells us that Christ incarnated the very Word of God. Thus, the text… the Word… is both witness to and emanates from THE WORD.
I should add that John 1:1 is also telling us that Christ *was* the very Word of God from the beginning. So… to draw a distinction between text and Person is a false dichotomy.
[This makes what Jesus commanded a description of who He is rather than what He expects of us. This is most certainly a road to spiritual destruction. Not only that, God Himself makes such a dichotomy in Matthew 4:4 and Psalm 138:2]
Reader:
Yes, but the article from which you quoted declared the Bible is NOT the Word of God nor is it alive. Do you believe this?
Bresson:
I’m not sure I see any reason for a “yes, but…” here. 🙂
Could you show me where he says the Bible isn’t the Word of God? Could you show me where he says the Word of God isn’t alive?
I think you’ve missed the whole point of his comment.
His point is that the Word of God isn’t the Word of God on its own. It is only the Word of God because Christ is THE WORD of God. The Word of God has no life in and of itself apart from Christ for it is Christ The Life who is THE WORD… it is Christ who invests the Word with life.
The Word has no meaning outside of THE WORD, yet we tend to preach from it and teach it as if it were so… and we do this when we proof text with no reference to the biblical and Christological storyline. When we treat the Bible as a “how to” manual for life, we have become no different from Jewish legalism.
[So, according to Bresson, biblical instruction is legalism and salvation by works.]
The Bible in and of itself is not the Word of God. The Bible has no meaning, no use, no authority, no reason for existence, no value to my life outside of the Person as Word giving it meaning. And *that*, de facto, means that the Person giving it meaning *is* more important that the text itself. In this age of using the Bible as proof-texts for apologetics, we need to be warned against treating the scriptures as if they are more important than the Person behind them.
[In other words, making imperatives a description of Jesus rather than instructions from Jesus to be followed.]
I realize many will claim they aren’t doing this, but too often the practice in our apologetics says otherwise.
Reader:
How do you know anything about your “Christocentric” theology apart from the written word of God? You wouldn’t even know Christ was the Son of God apart from the written Word of God.
The link you provided in the original post has another article on how “sola scriptura” can be a “great heresy”.
I’m very concerned about the direction you’re heading. I mean that sincerely.
Bresson:
First, don’t make the mistake of thinking just because it is the text that tells us about Christocentricity that the text is primary. If Christ is the source of the text as its author and He is the one investing it with meaning, He is primary and central, not the text (just as an invention is no greater than its inventor). There is a de facto subservience between text and Person.
[Which means that you can now interpret Scripture anyway you want to. Is this why God said He exalts His word above all of His name (Psalm 138:2)? Christ continually warned people against any supposed lofty view of God that dismissed a necessity to obey (Luke 6:46 and Luke 11:27-29).]
Second, the ad hominem isn’t helpful, nor is it accurate. I would quote something from the pope if I thought it would be helpful conveying a thought here. This blog is not dominated by, but still dotted with liberal theologians who, in spite of their heresy, manage to exegete some things rightly. I think N.T. Wright has some good things to say. I think Karl Rahner has some good things to say. Both end up in damnable positions that should be avoided upon pain of life. The pope affirms the resurrection of Christ. If I affirm it too, will I end up Catholic? Not hardly.
There are two reasons your analogy doesn’t wash: 1. Brinsmead wrote this ditty during a time of his life (as SDA, no less) when he affirmed reformed theology. That this guy is now an atheist is irrelevant. 2. What Brinsmead says here isn’t anything different than what has been posted on this blog for the past three years. In fact, given the recent articles written by the guys at Southern, what Brinsmead writes here could have just as easily have been written by one of them.
What I’m hearing here seems to be a kicking against the historical (not to mention biblical) goads of redemptive historical Christology.
Reader:
I didn’t toss an ad hominem attack. I am criticizing the doctrine you are pursuing; I am not attacking you personally at all.
I didn’t know this guy is now an atheist. I don’t know anything about him.
I see in the Christocentric theology a dangerous trend to minimize the words of scripture (reminds me of previous discussions we’ve had on inspiration).
Bresson:
I believe the greater danger lies with those who would so exalt the Bible, that the Centrality of Christ in all of life and all of history is eclipsed. And *that* is the legacy of the conservativism of our own day.
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
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
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment