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
Jesus Obeys For Us? Is That What We Really Believe?
“The fact that Christians buy into ‘the imperative command is [always] grounded in the indicative event,’ is just plain embarrassing.”
I guess the belief sweeping through Christendom that saints are unable to participate in the sanctification process is just fine with everybody. Also, we know that Christ died for our sins, but did he also live on earth for our works in sanctification? Was one of the primary purposes of His first appearing to fulfill the Law for us, and thereby nullifying a necessity to uphold the Law in the sanctification process by us? That seems like a major doctrinal angle to me with serious consequences regarding life application. But hey, I guess that’s just me. This neo-Reformed doctrine can be seen clearly in a recent post by Justin Taylor entitled “Imperatives – Indicatives = Impossibilities” on his “Between Two Worlds” blog. The title of his blog is a reference to the Biblical Theology of Geerhardus Vos. “Biblical Theology” is an interpretive process initiated by an eighteenth century liberal named Johann Philipp Gabler, who emphasized interpretation based on Historicism as opposed to dogma (ideas drawn from the text using literal interpretation). Vos supposedly took Gabler’s concept in a more conservative direction. Supposedly.
Obviously, all of the grammatical commands in the Bible with the saints being the object of the action (God commanding) is a serious problem for those who propagate this neo-Reformed doctrine, sometimes referred to as Gospel Sanctification. Hence, the post by Taylor (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/05/03/imperatives-indicatives-impossibilities/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29&utm_content=Netvibes ), that states that all commands in the Bible are preceded by a historical account of God performing the foundation of the command beforehand. In other words, we are not really obeying, we are merely displaying the obedience of Christ, who obeys for us. The only problem is the following: to suggest that this is a consistent grammatical pattern throughout the New Testament is an insult to any intelligence one might possess. Throughout the NT, God also makes His actions contingent on our obedience. The fact that Christians buy into “the imperative command is [always] grounded in the indicative event,” is just plain embarrassing. I address this in one of the chapters of my book:
Click to access essay%2011.PDF
The link is the specific excerpt, and catalogs many examples.
In this particular post, Taylor also displays the attitude among GS advocates that they are on the cutting edge of a new reformation, and invariably on a mission from God to save the church from orthodox evangelicalism:
“The problem with the typical evangelical motivation toward radical or sacrificial living is that ‘imperatives divorced from indicatives become impossibilities’ (to quote Tullian Tchividjian). Or another way that Tullian puts it: ‘gospel obligations must be based on gospel declarations.’
This ‘become what you are’ way of speaking is strange for many us. It seems precisely backward. But we must adjust our mental compass in order to walk this biblical path and recalibrate in order to speak this biblical language.”
In addition, the post is very insightful because several GS cronies comment in unguarded fashion. How this theology fleshes itself out in real life can be ascertained by the many comments (which had to be closed due to the number of Kool-Aid drinkers rushing the alter to drink from the vat).
“Alex” said: “I hear Tim Keller doing this a lot in his preaching. He will often organize his message around, “Here’s what you need to do, but you’re not doing it and in fact you can’t do it. You will never be able to do this until you see what Christ has done/who Christ has made you”.
“Mike” said: “….And all along they’ve been doing it in their own strength, because no one tells them they can rest in the finished work of Christ: both His passive obedience on the Cross and, as Chad mentioned, His active obedience throughout the 33 years before the Cross.”
Is that true? In the sanctification process, are we to “rest”? And are we to totally rest in what Christ has already done in our place? Remember, Alex also said that it is not us doing it [the obedience], and we couldn’t, even if we wanted to. To exert effort is to do it in our “own strength” (Mike).
Chad Bresson, another advocate of GS and a Christian mystic / blogger, further propagates the whole “Jesus obeys for us” idea in his comment on the same post:
“I usually take it a half-step back further in the indicative, including Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The indicative isn’t simply our position in Christ, but is (more importantly) Christ for us. IOW, not only should we be encouraging our people to become who they already are in Christ Jesus, we must be reminding them of what He has already been and done for them. We *do* the imperatives, not simply because of who we are in our union with Him, but because Christ has already done the imperatives on our behalf because we couldn’t. When I can’t do any given imperative perfectly (failing miserably), I rest in the One who has. Christ’s imputed active obedience is never far from the indicative-imperative rhythm of the Pauline ethic.”
Bresson’s comment concerning Christ’s “imputed active obedience “ should need no explanation in regard to what he is saying.
Other disturbing elements of GS can be seen in a comment by “Bruce” who reiterates the GS belief that there is no difference between justification and sanctification, and that we are “justified” every time Christ does not obey for us- via our confession:
“It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins. The pattern of justification is illustrated by Paul in Romans 4. Abraham believes in the God who justifies the ungodly (in this case gentile Abraham), David is forgiven for his adultery and murder. God’s condemnation for sin has reached into history at the cross, glorification has reached into history at conversion where believers experience a foretaste of glory. Neither Old or New Covenant obedience require moral perfection, they both require obedience of faith….so, having been justified from faithfulness we have peace with God!”
However, in all of the comments that were made, there was one voice of sanity that arose. Though I doubt the individual realizes the gravity of this false, antinomian doctrine; what he said, he said well, and I will use it for my conclusion. “Andrew” said the following:
“To be honest, at least in Reformed circles, I find that there is an equally large problem of total fear of ever trying to live in a godly way. No one would express it like this, of course, but the “I don’t want to work my way to righteousness” attitude means that almost any time a pastor doesn’t mention the gospel before he mentions godly living, the Reformed community jumps on him for it.
And of course there is something very right about this. But if I’m pasturing a church where I have been faithful to proclaim our total dependence on Christ’s righteousness in the gospel and I’m preaching through James, can’t I pound on the need to live a godly life? And here is exactly the problem: there are real parts of Scripture that simply don’t expound the indicative first.
For that matter, imagine that James was a Reformed blogger and wrote his letter as a blog entry first. Can you imagine the fury of the rest of the Reformed bloggers? “There is not nearly enough gospel in here, James! How can you expect us to live godly lives when you’ve given us no gospel?!?! Justification by works? Are you mad?!?!”
Now I don’t think that James and Paul are contradictory. But I do think that this statement: “This is not how Paul and the other New Testament writers motivated the church in light of the resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit. They did give imperatives (=what you should do), but they do so only based on indicatives (=what God has done).” is mostly true, but overstated.”
(Andrew Faris blog: http://www.christiansincontext.org/ )
P.S. to Andrew,
Andrew,
They believe that synergistic sanctification is a false gospel.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
7 comments