Christians Aren’t “Under” the Law? Oh Really?
One of the realities that has hit home with me recently is the fact that Christians in this country have been dumbed-down like our children are being dumbed-down in public schools. In fact, the dumbing-down started in my generation (I am 54 years old). When I was in eighth grade, I went to Oakwood Junior High School in Dayton, Ohio; it has always been a top-rated school nationally. However, when I was there, for example, in literature class, we primarily studied the significance of Beatles (the rock band) songs and their lyrics. Now, my dumbed-down generation, who was rarely taught how to think objectively, has moved into the American church.
Couple that with the fact that by and large, seminaries have taken over the administration of doctrinal teaching. Try teaching a class on soteriology in the local church; no one will show up because Christians don’t even know what soteriology is, and anyone who does show up will mock you by saying, “Is this a church or a seminary?” Seminaries are now in total control of what is taught in the local churches and the average American parishioner perceives seminarians as authorities who cannot be questioned. I recently visited a local church here in Xenia, Ohio and the church was having an annual Sunday school presentation. The church has a strong affiliation with Cedarville [Christian] College and many of the students attend there. I listened in horror as a Sunday school teacher explained that the main focus of his class (the college age class) was to merely encourage the students because, “we could never teach them anything more than they are learning at Cedarville.” Adding to my dismay was the senior pastor / MC nodding in agreement like some bobbing head in the back window of a low-rider.
This blogsite concerns Gospel Sanctification, and it has become evident to me why this doctrine has been able to sweep across America unchecked: Christians don’t know the difference between justification, sanctification, and glorification. In fact, not only do they not know the difference, they don’t even know what the terms mean; and worse yet, they aren’t theological terms, they are specific biblical terms ( 1Cor 1:30, 6:11).
Hence, the mantra / cliché: “Christians aren’t under the law.” 99.9999 percent of all Christians, it seems like, would quickly agree with this statement. When someone replies, “Christians are not under the law for justification, but we are under the law for sanctification because that’s what the Holy Spirit uses to sanctify us (John 17:17 [the specific term Paul used for us being ‘under’ the law is, ‘we uphold’ the law]),” the reply will be, “That’s legalism,” another American Christian cliché that replaces working knowledge of the Scriptures. Let me tell you what they mean by “legalism” because they don’t even know what they mean by that themselves. They intend to say that you believe we are sanctified by keeping the law, BUT the belief that Christians are under (obligated to) the law does not hold to that. It rather believes that the Holy Spirit sanctifies, and that we are walking in the Spirit when we are walking (living) in the truth, which of course is revealed in the Scriptures (again, John 17:17). It’s a colaboring; we obey, the Spirit sanctifies. Sanctification means to “set apart,” and the only thing that distinguishes us from the world is God’s way of thinking and doing verses that of the world. That’s why the kingdom of darkness constantly strives to un-sanctify those whom they have lost to being damned eternally; encouraging them to be more like the world dampens their testimony to those they haven’t lost yet—du! That’s why the kingdom of darkness always propagates, “being against the law (which most Christians think always refers to the Decalogue [ten commandments], but most often the word refers to all of Scripture) of God,” and I am using those words because most Christians don’t know what an antinomian is which is really weird because that’s what the apostle Paul said Satan is, and Satan is our enemy so it seems like most Christians would know what he is, but I guess not, and please hold while I catch my breath for the next sentence.
Besides, and furthermore, most Christians really don’t know what “legalism” means either. It’s trying to keep “a” (not “the”) law to gain justification (in other words, salvation), but because it’s impossible to keep the law perfectly in order to be justified, they create “a” law / ritual / rite that is their own standard for salvation, or what they perceive to be obtainable by humanoids. This is contrary to being justified by faith alone and working dependably with the Holy Spirit to be set apart (sanctified). Legalism is NOT an attempt to uphold God’s law for purposes of sanctification, that’s a classic antinomian lie, and it’s why antinomians attempt to make sanctification and justification the same thing—it makes an attempt to uphold “the” law for purposes of sanctification the same thing as true legalism. Got that?
That’s what Gospel Sanctification does; it synthesizes justification and sanctification: “The same gospel (gospel concerns justification) that saved you also sanctifies you.” Hence, you are supposedly sanctified by justification, or sanctification by faith alone, which means the exclusion of “the” law in sanctification because it is impossible to keep the law in order to be justified. Got it? Bye, bye law. Unless somebody else is keeping the law for you, in you, or through you; namely, as many forms of GS teach—Christ obeys for us. This moves us to other things Christians usually are not privy to: imputation, atonement, etc. Bottom line: the level of un-indoctrination among American Christians is frightful, and I never cease to be amazed at our zeal to spread such Christianity abroad via missionaries.
Because Christians don’t understand what justification is, and sanctification, or the difference between the two, GS hacks can teach Christians that not being, as Paul said, “under the law,” equals not being “obligated to the law.” They can also teach that the two are the same thing and nobody even blinks. They can also teach that separating the two (justification and sanctification) is legalism because Christians don’t know what that means either. That’s why GS advocates can say, as I heard one say in a sermon, that “any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination.” Also, a staple among GS advocates is teaching that Paul was speaking about sanctification in the first five chapters of Galatians. Supposedly, the Galatians were guilty of legalism because they were making efforts to obey God’s law, but the context of those chapters is clearly justification ( 2:16, 17, 21, 3:8,11, 24, 5;4). In fact, Paul says SPECIFICALLY in 5:4 that their error was an attempt to be “justified” by the law, NOT sanctified:
“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”
Hence the days we live in: teachers can teach that Paul’s line of thought is about sanctification, when Paul clearly states otherwise. That’s because they’re both the same, right?
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
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.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments