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
A Reader’s Fair Question: What are the Goals of Your Blog Regarding Gospel Sanctification?
Another interesting article, Paul.
These things you write keep leaving me wondering: how are you hoping to help the Evangelical community to stop going the wrong way and start going the right way? How many read your posts? What impact are your posts having? Finally, what are you doing outside of your posts to help? What, if anything, is effective?
Good questions Tad, I’m glad you asked:
The doctrine is the epitome of boiling a frog slowly ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog ). Its covert nature is truly over the top. I sat under it for six years, and knew something didn’t seem right, but couldn’t put my finger on it. The doctrine’s framework has all the orthodox labels, but it redefines the essentials: justification, sanctification, repentance, obedience etc. It synthesizes justification and sanctification, changes repentance into “deep repentance,” and changes obedience into “new obedience.” Interestingly, though I’m sure its proponents don’t have regular meetings, there is a common thread among them: they avoid labels like the plague. It goes along with a deep-seated mentality that to accept a label is to acquiesce to some idea that their doctrine has not been the truth since the beginning.
So, this brings me to answering your first question. An enemy (the doctrine) cannot be defeated until you put a face on it. My primary goal right now is to label this hideous doctrine “Gospel Sanctification,” AND, to promote the idea that GS is, in fact, Antinomianism. Also interesting: when you talk to its proponents directly, and use that term, they don’t blink for a second – they know exactly what you are talking about, but they themselves never use the term, never. I might add that they fear the term and actually despise it for whatever reasons. A good example of this is the Antioch School in Ames, Iowa. When I called them, my first question was, “are you, and your school, proponents of Gospel Sanctification?” Shockingly, the representative of the school answered with a simple “yes.” Somewhat taken aback, I continued: “uh, in other words, the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us.” His answer? “Yes.”
Let me interject some simplicity here. The gospel is the good news about justification / justification is monergistic / if the same gospel that saved us sanctifies us, sanctification is also monergistc / if sanctification is monergistic, that eliminates any use or application of the Law (or Scripture as a whole) in the sanctification process / that’s Antinomianism. By the way, I will soon be doing a series on the Antinomianoch School in Ames, Iowa.
Secondly, in regard to your first question, it is my goal to get better and better at articulating this doctrine in understandable ways while embracing the daunting task of not looking like I’m “dissing the gospel,” a smoke screen that serves its proponents in grand fashion. Men such as Jay Adams even recognize the difficulty in articulating a description of this doctrine.
Thirdly, in regard to your first question, it is my goal to get better equipped men (than me) off their asses to do something about this problem. I think my frustration may be reflected in the prior sentence. The doctrine is blatant Antinomianism invirtue of its premise, and needs to be stopped.
Fourthly, in regard to your first question, I intend to continually challenge better equipped teachers than I to stop loving their relationships with the who’s who of Evangelicalism more than the truth. I will also challenge them to love the truth more than the credibility of their diplomas. If their alma maters are propagating a false doctrine – love the truth more than your diploma.
Now in regard to your second question: I resolved in my heart long ago to do my best to write about this doctrine, no matter how many read my blog, until better equipped men address this problem. I have other goals in life; such as, I would like to go back to school and focus on counseling. With that said, the blog is experiencing a significant increase in readership (well more than double from the blogs conception in August of last year). But, it is what it is, and though the readership does number in the thousands, it just doesn’t matter, somebody has to speak-up any way they can.
Now your third question, “impact.” Five individuals have contacted me directly and said something like this: “Some time ago, our leadership seemed to be taking a different direction. I knew there was something wrong, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it.” The blog, and my book, which was a huge struggle for a layman such as myself (my thanks to those who helped, especially my daughter, Heather), supplied them with an understanding of the doctrine’s major tenets and ramifications. I would also be remiss in not mentioning the fact that at least one church has reversed course in response to a parishioner confronting the leadership using materials from this blog. I think it’s a joke that my book is the only work out there on GS. As I work on the second addition which will focus more on the Antinomian aspect of GS, I continue to pray for others to respond as well. Regarding impact, there is some hint of a very capable person writing a book about the doctrine with my book as a “starting point.” That is what I would consider to be a significant impact.
Furthermore, I suspect many more people have made use of the blog that have not contacted me. From time to time, I will get a flurry of hits from a specific community for an extended period of time. I strongly suspect that it is parishioners trolling the web trying to figure out what the heck is going on in their church. When this happens, they are getting my three years of research dropped in their lap. Amen, couldn’t make me happier.
Lastly, outside of my blog, I am working on the second edition of my book, which I lose money on, and I write letters to prominent Evangelical leaders asking them to not associate with proponents of GS because it lends credibility to the doctrine. For example, I will soon be writing a letter to Al Mohler. I am going to ask him as a fellow Southern Baptist to not attend, nor speak at the 2011 “Together for the Gospel” conference, or T4G. This conference always features the who’s who of Gospel Sanctification, and like the Antioch School, is a major promoter of the doctrine. At some point, all of the letters I have written will be posted on my blog as a testimony to the fact that many of these men really don’t care about the truth, and only listen to those who they see as on par with their own greatness.
Effectiveness? Don’t know, but this I do know: this doctrine will eventually produce something really stupid that people will have to take note of. Because the doctrine has no face yet, its direct cause in situations like Coral Ridge are going unnoticed, but that will change. Also, this doctrine has had very ill effects in the area of counseling, and I have warned certain organizations by letter accordingly. But nothing is being done because when it gets right down to it, they don’t care. What matters is who they play golf with, who writes the forwards in their books, and who’s lunching with them at Applebees during the next scheduled conference.
Blessings to you Tad, and btw, I am still working through the materials you have sent me and have some returns.
Your brother,
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
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment