New Calvinist Leaders Now Worshipping Each Other—Dead or Alive
I know I start a lot of articles this way, but I can’t say it enough: foul doctrine yields bad results. Before I get to the information that prompted this post (sent by a reader), what do I mean by “New Calvinism”? NC is a massive movement (supposedly a new reformation) sweeping across the world like a giant tsunami. It encompasses Sonship Theology, Gospel Sanctification, New Covenant Theology, Christian Hedonism, Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics, and Heart Theology. The movement has totally rewritten orthodox Christianity, and soon (if not already the case), considering seminary graduates for ministry in the local church will be a prohibitive risk. Dumbed-down congregants by the masses are ever-waiting with bated breath for the next profound unction to proceed from the mouths of New Calvinist gods. John Piper, who often writes and says outrageously unorthodox things—has over 300,000 followers on Twitter. One wonders if Christianity has ever been inflicted with such a large percentage of koolaholics, as others stand aghast and bewildered regarding the growth of this movement.
The leaders of this movement realize more and more that they can get away with saying and doing anything, and at times seem to be amused themselves at what they get a pass on. Hence, they now worship each other openly—dead or alive. Recently, a group of New Calvinist leaders wrote a book of essays for the purpose of praising John Piper. One of the authors that contributed to the book was none other than John MacArthur Jr. He also wrote a glowing forward in a book written by Piper that was full of outlandish statements. The essay book was presented to Piper at a conference (as a surprise) by his fawning protégé, Justin Taylor. Yes, they wanted to sing his praises—apparently for his great service to Christianity in developing a theology called “Christian Hedonism.” No, it isn’t a dream.
So then, no surprise that Chad Bresson, radio personality and elder at Clearcreek Chapel (a well known and respected church in the NC network), held a tribute to Geerhardus Vos at his grave. Geerhardus Vos is the supposed father of Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics, a tenet of New Calvinism. But not really, the hermeneutic was developed by a liberal theologian in the eighteenth century—Vos supposedly redeveloped the hermeneutic and took it in a more conservative direction. He developed the hermeneutic into the very orthodox sounding name of “Biblical Theology” which is anything but. “Biblical Theology” was the theme of this year’s Gospel Coalition convention. Per the usual deception of the movement, the term “Redemptive-Historical” was rarely used, if at all because “Biblical Theology” sounds, well, “biblical.”
Bresson brazenly posted photographs of the tribute on his FaceBook page, but why not? After all—who’s going to call him on it? The photograph below shows Bresson reading writings by Vos graveside. One of the comments on his FB page in reference to the pictures said the following: “Standing in the midst of the obvious decay that is the hallmark of the already, speaks of the inbreaking ‘not yet’ through lumped throat and wet eyes.” Creepy, no?
Though I would be amiss not to mention the contrast between this behavior from New Calvinist gods and their supposedly everything Jesus theology, the fact of the matter is, they get a pass on all their hypocrisy, contradictions, and doublespeak as well. As Bresson has written or said on many occasions, he has a major problem with the belief that there is a future for national Israel because that’s eclipsing Christ with a sliver of geography. Apparently, it’s alright to do that if one of the gods of New Calvinism is under the sliver.
paul
So, When Did New Calvinism Hijack Westminster? And…
I own a couple of online bookstores and enjoy reading some of the older Christian books. As I was entering books the other day, I picked one up from the stack entitled “The Infallible Word” written by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, the one in Philadelphia. The book is a real keeper; It is in very good condition, and is the third revision of a symposium on the doctrine of Scripture. It was written in 1946, and the third revision (the copy I have) was printed in 1967. The forward is written by Dr. M. Lloyd Jones. Apparently, the contributors are from the Westminster faculty of that time (1946) as follows: John Murray; Edward Young; N.B. Stonehouse; John Skelton; Paul Wooley; R.B. Kuiper; Cornelius Van Til.
As Dr. Masters of the Metropolitan has noted, New Calvinism’s claim of historical precedent is far from impressive. And as others have noted, New Covenant Theology (which is joined at the hip with New Calvinism) was probably conceived at Westminster around 1980. So, when I picked up the next data entry and realized what it was, my first thought was, “this should be interesting.” Yes, especially with Paul Wooley stating in the Preface: “It continues to be our conviction that this is the basic position of the divines who made up the Westminster Assembly which convened in 1643…”
There is no room here to state all of the glaring contradictions between Old Calvinism and New Calvinism provoked by the reading of this book, but I will rather focus on what New Calvinism and its tenets (NCT, Gospel Sanctification, Heart Theology, Christian Hedonism, and Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics) should stand on, or fall: its view of Scripture.
First, the faculty didn’t share New Calvinism’s Christocentric view of Scripture. Their view of Scripture was very similar to traditional Evangelicalism, which is disdained by proponents of New Calvinism. Before I continue, I might also add that Geerhardus Vos and his Biblical Theology is not once mentioned in the book, or if it is, I certainly missed it, and he (Vos) definitely appears nowhere in the index of names. Instead of “gospel” being used to refer to Scripture (actually, I remember “gospel” being used once, maybe twice, in the whole book), the term that all faculty members used throughout the book to describe Scripture, seemingly on every page, was “the objective divine authority.” Throughout the book, the emphasis was *objective authority* NOT *gospel narrative.* John Murray states the following on page 29:
“It is precisely in this estimation of the Scriptures and in such illusion to them, as not only prophetic of what took place in the fullness of time but also as having direct bearing upon the most practical and abiding of Christian duties, that the New Testament abounds.”
Got that? The Scriptures are not only about what took place in “the fullness of time” (ie., the gospel), but “also” have a “direct bearing” on practical Christian “duties.” To the New Calvinist, this statement is barley less than heresy. Furthermore, *obedience* to the *authority* of Scripture is a constant theme throughout the book. N.B. Stonehouse further elaborates on page 99:
“It is our conviction that the idea of canonicity has meaning and validity only if Christian theism, the theism of the Bible, is true. Implicit in the idea of a divinely authoritative Scripture is the thought of God as self-existent and self sufficient, the creator and ruler of the universe. His works necessarily constitute a disclosure of his mind and purpose.”
Not only does this make my prior point, but introduces another: this is a far cry from John Piper’s Christocentric assertion that God “entered history through the works of Christ.” No, redemption entered history as a disclosure of God’s mind and purpose. This leaves room for other things God may want to disclose about Himself, obviously. And this was also the position of the Westminster faculty. In fact, Edward Young attributes Luke 24:44 to the idea that Christ was speaking only of those scriptures that He prophetically and historically fulfilled, not New Calvinism’s idea that all Scripture is Christicentric. Here is what he said on page 61:
“What, however is meant by Christ’s use of the word “psalms”? Did he thereby intend to refer to all the books in the third division of the canon, or did he merely have in mind the book of Psalms itself? The latter alternative, we think, is probably correct. Christ singled out the book of Psalms, it would appear, not so much because it was the best known and most influential book of the third division, but rather because in the Psalms there were many predictions about himself. This was the Christological book, par excellence, of the third division of the Old Testament canon.
Most of the books of this third division do not contain direct messianic prophesies. Hence, if Christ had used a technical designation to indicate this third division, he would probably have weakened his argument to a certain extent. But by the reference to the Psalms he directs the minds of his hearers immediately to that particular book in which occur the greater number of references to himself.”
Hence, in the estimation of the Westminster faculty during that time, the whole Bible isn’t a “Christological book, par excellence,” as it is more than fair to say of the New Calvinist mantra, but only the Psalms, which is a “particular” book having a “greater number of references” to himself. “Greater number” of…, obviously implies that their view wasn’t in alignment with a comprehensive soteriology, but rather the latter being among other revelations of God’s will and character, although a major theme.
Secondly, along the lines of Scripture, the faculty did not share the New Calvinist / NCT view that Christ came to abolish the Old Testament Law by fulfilling it, but rather fulfilled it to FURTHER ESTABLISH ITS AUTHORITY. John Murray makes this clear on pages 20 and 21 while commenting on Matthew 5:17-19;
“ The word ‘destroy’ (kataluo) is particularly significant. It means to abrogate, to demolish, to disintegrate, to annul or, as J.A. Alexander points out, ‘the destruction of the whole by the complete separation of its parts, as when a house is taken down by being taken to pieces.’ His emphatic denial of any such purpose in reference to either the law or the prophets means that the discharge of his messianic mission leaves the law and the prophets intact. He utters, however, not only this emphatic denial but also adds the positive purpose of his coming – he came to fulfill, to complete. And so his work with reference to both law and prophets is completory, not destructive. He who can speak in the immediately succeeding context with such solemn asseveration and imperious authority brings all that is involved in such asseveration and authority to bear upon the confirmation of the abiding validity, stability, and authority of both law and prophets. And not only so, but he also grounds his own mission and task upon such permanent validity, and defines his work in terms of fulfillment of all that the law and the prophets provided.”
Murray states here that Christ’s mission was grounded in the permanent authority of the law and the prophets. Could there be a more antithetical statement in regard to New Covenant Theology?
Lastly, Stonehouse makes it clear what the Westminster faculty believed in regard to a centrality of Scripture on page 107:
“ To put the matter in concrete and specific terms, Christianity began as a religion of a divine book, as a religion of authority which definitely acknowledged a book as an objective expression of the divine mind and will. Were it not that so many modern writers have approached the study of the New Testament cannon with the assumption that Christianity is basically not a religion of authority but a religion of “the spirit,” it would hardly seem necessary to emphasize the point that the idea of an inscripturated canon, far from being uncongenial to Christianity, forms an integral element of the Christian faith from the beginning of its life.”
While this statement makes my aforementioned point, let me also ask: what is more indicative of New Calvinism than the claim that it promotes “the spirit” over the authority of Scripture? The Westminster faculty of that time even cautioned against the truth / tension of the illuminating Spirit being set against objective authority: “This doctrine of the inward witness of the Spirit does not sacrifice the objective authority of the Scriptures, as often maintained” (p.101).
Do I have to try to carry all of the water here? Somebody help me out. It seems that these guys (as I gather from my reading) were definitely Covenant theologians. But there is no way that the movers and shakers at the present-day Westminster Seminary are of Covenant Theology. If you believe that, I would like to tell that this book is personally autographed by Van Til with a gel pen, and it can be yours for a modest price of say, 200 bucs. You can’t separate New Calvinism from NCT / Gospel Sanctification, they are joined at the hip. What’s going on over there? It looks like a hijacking to me, and when did it happen? And how do these guys get away with pretending to be on the same par with Westminster tradition? I’m just asking.
paul
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
Do You Misrepresent Obedience? Well Then, You Just Might Be an Antinomian: Part 2
“Therefore, any teaching that devalues the necessity of our obedience to biblical imperatives is detrimental to spiritual growth and makes us slaves to our emotions. We have this great hope as Christians: if we do not like where our heart is, we can do something about it and the Holy Spirit will help us.”
In part one, we looked at how teachers misrepresent the Pharisees as those who were proficient in upholding God’s word “outwardly.” Supposedly, the Pharisees were impressive in regard to their ability to do that, but only received condemnation from Christ as a result. The conclusion of the matter? You can’t please God by “trying” to keep the Law. And in almost every case where this thesis is presented in a sermon or Bible lesson the following is also continually emphasized: “You can’t be saved by keeping the Law.” This confuses the role of the Law in justification verses sanctification.
We also looked at the fact that the basis of this proposition is erroneous. The Lord’s primary beef with the Pharisees was not their “efforts” to keep the Law, but the fact that they modified the Law of God to fit their man-made traditions and rules (Mark 7:8-13). We will now look at the other erroneous part of this assertion; namely, efforts at keeping the Law are always an outward affair. In other words, obedience pertains to the outward only; so, because the Pharisees supposedly focused on obedience to the Law, they were only “cleaning the outside of the cup,” and were “whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones.” And since (don’t miss this) inside change is such a complex affair, we can’t “reduce the Bible to a bunch of do’s and dont’s,” and “live our lives by lists.” So then, since *all change* is from the “inside out,” and Christ is the one who changes us, what follows is many theories on how that happens.
And trust me, the theories are not in short supply. They mostly entail being wowed by who Christ is as a person which is learned from the scriptures and general revelation (creation). Therefore, change by enamoration; when we realize how awesome Christ is and what He has done for us, joyful obedience naturally follows without any effort on our part. There is also “intelligent repentance” which is a complex system of discovering sin in our heart. When we discover sin deep in our heart, and repent of it through prayer, our heart is emptied of sin, leaving a void which Christ fills with Himself, resulting in Him obeying for us. There is also the inside change by prayer only angle as well.
The above theories propagate the idea that obedience has no curative value and is merely a natural result (and therefore essentially outward) of something more complex; Christians have swallowed this concept hook, line, and sinker. However, biblical obedience is both inside and outside, and Christ rebuked the Pharisees for neglecting inside obedience; that is what He meant by accusing them of being whitewashed tombs. Let me explain. In Matthew 23:23-28, Christ confronts the Pharisees with both examples of the whitewashed tomb and cup that is only clean on the outside.
But first, in verse 23, it is very apparent that He chides them because they “neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.” These have to do with attitudes. At least one, mercy, is among the beatitudes listed at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount by Christ, and the other two have similar implications among the other eight beatitudes. In regard to the cup illustration, Christ said the Pharisees were “full of greed and self-indulgence.” Outwardly, they put on a show to appear righteous to others (so they probably didn’t even obey outwardly when in private), but on the inside of the cup they were greedy (selfish) and self-serving. This isn’t rocket science; for example, I was very comfortable on Susan’s couch last night while watching my favorite show on the Fox News Channel. Then Susan came into the dinning area (which is open to the family room), and started clearing off the table to get it ready to be set for me and four others. That’s when the Holy Spirit kicked me in the conscience and I was either going to die to self (obey) or not. My outward obedience in helping her set the table began with inward obedience. And by the way, she could have probably cared less if I helped or not; I did it to please Christ.
In verses 27 and 28, Christ uses the same kind of illustration (whitewashed tombs) regarding the fact that the Pharisees were full of “lawlessness” on the inside. In other words, their minds / thoughts were saturated with things like lust, covetousness, and revenge while being concerned with outward appearances to impress others (motives). One of the primary reasons God judged the Earth via the flood was the rampant lawlessness of the mind (Genesis 6:5). The fact that God calls for an inward obedience to Godly thinking is clear. Paul said in 2Corinthians 10:5 that we are to “take every thought captive to obey Christ.”
In addition, it is important to note that inside obedience and outside obedience work together to bring about change. Change is impossible without the inside work of the Holy Spirit, but *all* change is not from the inside out, it’s *both.* The Holy Spirit is our “helper,” and he helps us with our role in the sanctification process: inside and outside obedience (John 14:12-17). Regarding the fact that inside and outside obedience work together for change, let me illustrate. Here is what Christ said in Matthew 6:19-21:
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
The counsel from Christ to store up treasure in heaven rather than on Earth is imperative and precedes the location of our heart. Stop investing on Earth, start investing in Heaven. It’s a matter of investment; where we invest is where our hearts will be. Is it not obvious that many marriages have come to ruin because one or both spouses invested in a career rather than each other? We also see this in one of Paul’s imperatives: “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9). Ie., stop investing in evil, start investing in good. Cling to the one and neglect the other. Our love *must* be sincere, and the key is where we invest as a matter of obedience – feelings will follow. Also, Romans 12:2 plainly says how our minds are transformed; conformity to the mind of Christ rather than the world.
Therefore, any teaching that devalues the necessity of our obedience to biblical imperatives is detrimental to spiritual growth and makes us slaves to our emotions. We have this great hope as Christians: if we do not like where our heart is, we can do something about it and the Holy Spirit will help us. Paul said it like this in Philippians 4:8,9;
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.”
In this passage we have inside obedience, outside obedience, and the God of “peace” with us.
Brothers and sisters I beg you: flee from any teacher who toys with the biblical concept of obedience.
paul
Ted Black: “Covenantal Historical” is a Much Better Argument Than Redemptive Historical
As previously discussed on this blog, New Covenant Theology, Heart Theology, Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics, and Christian Hedonism are the four pillars of the antinomian doctrine sometimes referred to as Gospel Sanctification. This doctrine is gaining rapid, widespread acceptance among evangelicals, and is so subtle that many teachers propagate its elements unawares.
New Covenant Theology argues that the new covenant replaced the Law with a new “higher Law of love” (or other such references like “higher law of Christ”). Heart Theology is the practical application of Gospel Sanctification’s narrow role in regard to our participation in the sanctification process. Christian Hedonism attempts to explain how Gospel Sanctification is experienced. But Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics is an interpretive prism that makes Gospel Sanctification plausible.
Gospel Sanctification, in a nutshell, synthesizes justification with sanctification and extrapolates the same means of monergistic justification into sanctification, reducing the role of the believer in sanctification to almost nothing, except for the same role we would have in justification. Heart Theology then attempts to answer the question: “So what are believers supposed to do in the sanctification process?” But all in all, the four pillars work together to eliminate an upholding of the Law *by believers* in the sanctification process.
Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics was developed by Geerhardus Vos and coined “Biblical Theology” sometime between 1894 and 1932 while he was a professor at Princeton. Most of what I have learned about this hermeneutic is from Ted Black’s “The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos: an Analysis, Critique, and Reconstruction.” Black wrote the paper as a requirement for a project while at Covenant College located in Georgia. Two things should bring Vos’s approach into immediate suspicion: First, the complexity of it. Blacks Critique, though a masterpiece, is 150 pages of mind-numbing theology. Certainly, especially when one considers the Sermon on the Mount, the expectation of such a complex prerequisite to understanding God’s word does not seem likely. Secondly, it’s new, with similar theories nowhere to be found before the eighteenth century.
As I said, this theory of interpretation is extremely complex, but it primarily teaches that the Bible is a historical account of redemption. Hence, the name: “Redemptive Historical.” It goes without saying that not many Christians would argue with that, but what they don’t understand is that this theory of interpretation teaches that the Bible is exclusively a redemptive narrative concerning the works of Christ and nothing else. Therefore, as one example, what seems to be commands directed towards us in the Bible can now become commands that God knows we cannot obey with the intention of driving us to the one who fulfilled the Law on our behalf: Christ. In other words, when you look at Scripture through a Christocentric prism, the purpose of commands are to drive us to the knowledge that we are unable to uphold the Law, as apposed to the idea that obedience is our part in a covenant between us and God (but as a way of loving God and submitting to the Lordship of Christ, not as works for salvation) So then, when Paul the apostle referred to the Law as a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ, this can also apply to sanctification as well (supposedly).
This now sets the table for Black’s contention. He proposes on pages 53-62 of the above cited paper that covenants are a much more pronounced theme in the Scriptures than the works of Christ. He does this in a string of brilliant arguments, but I will only enunciate the ones I can best get my mind around. On page 59, he says the following: “As I argued above, the particular purpose of Gen. 1-2 is not redemptive, but covenantal—its purpose is the presentation of the covenant.” This brings to my mind (and I will use it to make my first point) the assertion by John Piper in his message at the the 2010 T4G conference that the theme of the gospels is redemptive because of how each gospel ends. This is also a continuing mantra heard among proponents of GS, that the end determines the theme. No wonder, because at the beginning of the Bible you have God as creator, and the God who makes a covenant with man, not redemption. Also, let me add that in a grand display of weak discernment in our time, nobody at the T4G blinked at what Piper said, regardless of the fact that the gospels do not even end with redemption as well, but rather Christ announcing that He had been given all authority by the Father and His mandate for the church. In fact, the Bible as a whole doesn’t even end with redemption, but rather the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth and the apparent restoration of God’s covenant with man.
Secondly, Black makes the point that the Old and New Testaments are structured / organized around the covenants. Each phase of Biblical history begins or encompasses a covenant. Also, he mentions the progressive nature of the Abrahamic covenant from Genesis 12 to the end of the Bible. When you follow Blacks reasoning as he unfolds his thesis in detail, you begin to see the dominant theme of God’s covenants with man throughout Scripture.
Thirdly, Black makes the point on page 57 that viewing covenants as a major theme in the Bible presents the Trinity in a more balanced, and biblical light: “Further, it appears that Scripture is not centered around Christ but rather around the Triune God, including Christ.” The propensity to present unbalanced views of the Trinity by GS proponents is an ongoing concern of great import. Obviously, if the Bible is primarily about the redemptive works of Christ, rather than His part in effecting the covenants between God and man, this is bound to happen, and for the worse. Black says the following on page 60: “The clear implication of this is that redemption, although a key theme of Scripture, and the distinguishing characteristic of any and all covenants of grace, is not the primary element of our present covenant in either its historical or inscripturated presentation, and neither was it primary in the past.”
But more importantly, Black, unlike proponents of GS, is suggesting covenants as a primary theme, not a single prism in which to interpret all of Scripture. I think he says the following on page 61 in sarcasm: “As such, and in different terms, we should understand that Scripture is not first and foremost based on the ‘history of redemption,’ but on the ‘history of the covenant’ I propose therefore, that we do not refer to our method of interpreting Scripture as ‘Redemptive Historical,’ but rather ‘Covenantal Historical.’”
By any measure, GS has a weak argument in regard to redemption being the *only* major theme of Scripture, and a far lesser argument for it being a single prism in which to interpret all of Scripture. Not only that, its unreasonably complex, and like its illegitimate child, NCT, which is thought by some to be only thirty years old, its way too new, implying that God’s children have been without a sufficient hermeneutic for 1900 years.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments