N.T. Wright e a nova perspectiva em Paulo - D. A. Carson #EnsinoFiel 029

foreign [Music] specials foreign the only conceivable justification for expounding error is to warn people against it is I am always suspicious of people who develop a specialized Ministry of expounding error yes that is one must first expound the truth and show people from scripture what is the truth is and then from that vantage point to begin to show how it is possible to Veer into unwise paths there was a very famous Pastor in England called Richard Baxter hashemado Richard Baxter other pastor pastors that if people came into their parishes into their Church areas preaching a false doctrine of justifications the first responsibility was not to refute him but to preach up justification better than they might foreign having said that however it is remarkable how the Lord Jesus warns people against error my standard is how Peter and Jude warn people against error is how the Apostle Paul warns against error Epistles and so forth yes one does not want to become a specialist in Arab um but if one never warns one's congregation about errors probably the congregations are sliding into them is now I confess I'm facing another small problem tonight my sense is that there might be um 50 100 150 of you yeah that have already done some serious reading in what is called the new perspective on Paul um and you folks want me to be quite detailed and to the point but that leaves another 12 or 1400 that don't have a clue what I'm talking about yet so why should I bother warning you about an error that you don't even face in fact sometimes you start expounding an error and people say oh I'd like to read more about that is foreign teachers do need about errors that are beginning to become more popular yeah all I would say is that until this becomes a serious problem in your area do not spend much time on it is in the course of the next few minutes I will outline what the challenge is and also some of the resources for answering it is and I pray that most of you will never need them but on the other hand it's also important to be forewarned in case these things do to wash over Brazil and then you need to know where to look nice so what is this new perspective on Paul is another perspective of Paulina although the long ways in some ways the origin of this movement was in a book published in 1977. as high as is foreign of its 450 Pages more than 300 were devoted to the Judaism of Paul's day not to Paul himself what he argued was first premiere that the Judaism of Paul's day was not guilty of endless legalism as many Protestants in the west thinks he knew the primary sources very well it is and from these sources he argued that first century Jews were not legalists who thought that you could get into heaven by having enough good works instead he argued they belonged to a pattern of religion that he called covenantal gnomism is an approach to the law that is based on a certain covenantal understanding [Music] he argued that in the understanding of virtually all first century Jews [Music] Jews entered the Covenant and took on the responsibility of the law out of Grace God chose Israel there was a king out of Grace after all Jews believe Deuteronomy 7 and Deuteronomy 10. these chapters insist that God loved Israel because he loved her is but although Israel was chosen by Grace they maintain themselves in the Covenant by works is Sanders argued that the big difference between Paul and his unconverted Jewish rabbi friends [Music] was not Grace versus law now he says that Paul himself is a covenantal gnomist that is he says Christians understand that they're received in the New Covenant by Grace but they must maintain themselves in it by works so in Sanders understanding both unconverted Jews and Paul I converted Jew are both covenantal gnomists back twice so what's the difference between them the difference between them he says is not law versus race Sanders versus but rather that the Christians believe that Jesus really was the Messiah and the Jews didn't my ernsters in other words according to Sanders the big dispute between Jews and Christians in the first century was christological it had to do with the doctrine of Christ foreign now for a variety of reasons this book had a huge impact in the world of English language Protestant scholarship is need part of his argument was right it was a small part but it was an important part is important he pointed out that many writers who try to describe first century Judaism is sources in Judaism that come from the fourth and fifth century a.

doches for example some of these sources were drawn from the Babylonian talmud fourth fifth Century A. D but is in the talmud you can find passages in which it is argued that on the last day a person is permitted to enter into the new Heaven and the new Earth or not depending on whether all of his Good Deeds outweigh all of his bad Deeds on a scale um that is a classic legalist approach to Salvation yes pure works you get in if you're good enough but this image of a balance with good works measured against Bad works you cannot find in any Jewish Source in the first century that's fourth and fifth Century A. D equilibrium it would be like trying to determine thought in the 16th century by reading 20th century literature Pennsylvania EP Sanders was very good at exposing such historical fallacy in town EP Sanders foreign if you're going to talk about what first century Judaism is like you must use first century Jewish sources in that sense he was right and it was an important corrective to some Protestant Scholars especially it needs to be said German lutherans foreign now much later people began to show where Sanders was wrong my my judge is one of the places where nowadays most Scholars recognize that Sanders was just plain wrong was his tendency to speak all the time about first century Judaism as if all of its branches were exactly the same for example and that they all fell into this one rubric called covenantal gnomism but just as protestantism in Brazil today is incredibly diverse um so Judaism in the first century was incredibly diverse some friends of mine with me put together a book of 600 Pages you don't want to read it it's full of Aramaic and Hebrew and Greek but what we have done is gone through all the first century Jewish sources that we can find to show how incredibly diverse first century Judaism was some forms of it could usefully be called covenantal nomist but others quite frankly really did hold to some kind of justification by works now all of this is just background but because of the influence of Sanders work a number of biblical Scholars began to argue along this line values is if covenantal normism was everywhere in the Jewish World in the first century then Paul himself coming from that background would necessarily think along those lines and so they began to argue that if you re-read Paul's letters carefully he really is isn't arguing for Grace against works the way we usually think of it he's arguing for something a wee bit different there was a very influential British scholar by the name of James done done argues that what Paul is trying to tear down in Judaism is not exactly salvation by works what he is trying to tear down instead is what he calls boundary markers for example he says read Galatians he talks about kosher food he talks about circumcision elsewhere he talks about the Sabbath these are not deeply moral issues by which you gain special benefit to get into heaven yes things like kosher food and circumcision and Sabbath are boundary markers that is they are forms of religious practice that Define Judaism by establishing boundaries around it is but the Apostle Paul he says is trying to build a church made up of Jews and Gentiles so he's trying to tear down the boundary markers not because he's trying to protect Grace over against law nope but because as long as the boundary markers are in place Jews will be distinct from Gentiles is several commentaries and other books trying to argue this line right through many of the Paul of Pauline letters and Tom James now before I track out what happened next I need to tell you that today Dunn has largely softened all of this is he followed this line very strongly for about 25 years and influenced a very large number of people is but eventually enough people showed how often Paul talks about Sin about Justice about the wrath of God about condemnation about the need for forgiveness about a person's right standing with God foreign that eventually even he could see that an analysis almost exclusively in terms of boundary markers was just too narrow problems so today Dunn has a slightly revised views at least he pretends that it's only a slightly revised view in fact it's a massive revisions foreign people marker effects that were out there is now if that is all that he had said 30 years ago he wouldn't have cost any fuss is because clearly the law of God under the terms of the old Covenant does include some things that Mark out the Jews by a certain kind of boundary for kids if he had argued that we were overlooking some of those elements and needed to give them a little bit more prominence nobody would have got into a debate with him in my view he still puts a bit too much emphasis on that side but it is only a matter of emphasis now not the complete denial that he had at one point in his writings now we speak of the new perspective on Paulina in fact it would be more accurate to speak of the New Perspectives plural on Paula special because it's not as if everybody follows done or let's say it's not as if everybody follows Sanders than done boys but Sanders and then other authors my sanders I won't try to track out a survey of these people except to mention one man who is the most influential of all of them is his name is Tom Wright now I need to tell you frankly that these men that I mention are all men that I know we meet at professional meetings and that sort of thing uh and in Tom's case we were exact contemporaries in England well I was studying at Cambridge he was studying at Oxford Student in Cambridge at least in Oxford we used to meet together in the summer and and attend conferences together and in very similar to my own I could tell you some of the steps that have led him to move in different patterns but although that would be interesting it might be a wee bit personal my zimbara are you supposed to say more over I need to tell you that some of his published material is simply superb he is I have done University missions now for 35 years about 20 years ago Tom published a little book called who is Jesus it was a refutation of a number of screwball ideas that were circulating at the time yeah foreign so but at the time is very good most written up the resurrection of um at 800 technical Pages it is probably the best book on the resurrection in the last hundred years so if you now hear me criticizing him you must understand that I'm criticizing a friend and someone whose work in several respects I admire greatly moreover he is absolutely terrific in debate he's a brilliant lecturer he can hold a vast crowd for a long time and you hang on his every word if he were a boring lecturer who put you to sleep [Music] and if all is I wouldn't spend any time answering him yeah but it's precisely because he's a first class writer and a first class lecturer that he has in my judgment become dangerous is in other words if you are going to be Discerning don't be snooker don't be taken in just because somebody is a gifted Communicator foreign so what does Tom Wright hold and teach on these matters well let me use first of all from about 25 years ago because they too have changed influenced as he was by ep Sanders and other writers about that time he came to argue several important things importance some of them have to do with his understanding of the Exile and exactly what Jesus was preaching about the Exile yeah those are a very important part of his thought but for convenience tonight I'm going to set them aside and just stay on Paul yes Wright argued that for Paul justification is God's declaration that his people are in the Covenant para right let me repeat that it's very important for right justification is God's declarative act by which Believers are said to be in the Covenant but are right you can see that this belongs to the heritage of covenantal nomism moreover Wright says that this declarative Act of God is not once for all at the beginning of your Christian experience but that it is God's ongoing declaration throughout the Christian's life that he or she is in the Covenant clearly what there are two differences between rights understanding of justification and the understanding of justification that we've been expounding here is the thing that both views have in common is that in both cases we say that justification is God's declarative Act is but we insist that the Bible says that it is God's declarative act that because of Christ's work we are just whereas he said that it was God's declarative act by which we are declared to be in the Covenant right thus The crucial thing is what community you belong to it's an ecclesiological and it's an ecclesiological Outlook rather than whether or not you are right with God sorry rather than whether or not you are right with God he knows Joseph the second difference is that we insist that Paul teaches that Luke teaches both that when you are Justified it is instantaneous and for all of life is once for all but with ongoing implications whereas he argues that it's not once for all but is an ongoing Declaration of God for his people is now once again it has to be said that there are a lot of responses that have been given to right and nowadays he has modified his own definition quite a number of people have said Tom dear Tom don't you see how much righteousness itself is at issue not just whether or not you're in a certain Covenant Community is don't you see that there is an emphasis in Paul on averting the wrath of God and being declared righteous before God so today Tom has modified his definition foreign justification is that declarative Act of God by which you are declared just and in the Covenant so to put it nicely he wants his cake and eat it too much that is he wants to combine the classic I would say Pauline definition with his own who says the problem is that in all of his subsequent books after he is conceded that the classic view has some text that might justify it is after he has spent four or five pages saying yeah yeah there's something to this Justice business he spends the next two or three hundred Pages doing the old thing anyways and if you say Tom Tom where's the emphasis on Justice he tends to reply look look it's right there I've got it on my pages here I'm not denying any of that yeah and formally that's true but in terms of what he is emphasizing what is the center of his thought what he's pushing all the time it is the old unreconstructed Tom that is coming across is reconstrated as another element to his thought that has to be mentioned this justification of which we've been speaking with his new definition which he denies is a once for all thing he nevertheless said rightly that it is grounded in what Christ did on the cross but then he argues that at the last day when it comes to whether or not God will allow you into the new Heaven and the new Earth you need as it were to be justified again there is a final justification or to put it another way what is the basis on which God will declare you just and allow you into his new Heaven and new earth on the last day and here he says and this is a direct quotation that at this final justification we will be justified on the basis of the whole life lived which for him includes what Christ has done in our confidence in him [Music] but it also includes The Works that we produce out of the grace that we've received from him this is the basis of our entrance into the new heaven is in my view this is not only false but hugely dangerous now in English speaking scholarly circles for about 25 years this Nexus of New Perspectives held dominant influence in in in most New Testament Scholars influence but I should tell you that today it is a waning influence this is because of the publication of quite a lot of books now that have refuted both done and right line by line line by line exegesis by exegesis let me mention some authors Unfortunately they have all written in English or other European languages they have not written in Portuguese foreign the best overall survey is by um Stephen Westerholm Emilio foreign scholar by the name of seyun Kim this is who has done some excellent work on the understanding of sin in Paul is there are two books written by an American called guy Prentice Waters is Guy Waters guy Prentice Waters printers yeah one of those funny names if they only had decent Portuguese names life would be simpler um and his work is really from a systematic's perspective but it is at a fairly easy introductory level ridiculously complicated complicated are two volumes that um two or three others and myself edited called even the title is bad justification and variegated nomism you don't want to know so the first volume is all about first century Judaism and the second volume is all about Paul yes the only reason I mention it here is because I know that some of you are Seminary teachers and the like and you might want to have access to some of it is the book that has sparked the most recent flurry of debate it's by John Piper John Piper he will be preaching here I understand in two more years and I'm sure that some of his books have been translated into Portuguese this book is called the future of justification this is an important book yes it's not too long and John wanted to be so careful that he gave the first draft of his em of his writing to um uh Tom Wright so that Tom could look it over Tom replied to John with 11 000 words of criticism which John took into account to produce a book that was as careful and as accurate as he could make it is since then Tom has replied with his own book is book is called justification God's plan and Paul's Vision with all respect I don't think that Tom is as careful in dealing with John as John is in dealing with Tom Tom tends to paint with a broad brush and dismiss people and simply respond without all the detailed exegesis that John provides respond just saying is if you read English blogs there are two on um Tom that are superb is this from a systematic perspective there is a series of blogs by Paul Helm perspectives is blog is called Helms Deep deep deep Helms Deep um there is a shorter but penetrating critique of Tom by Kevin De Young he is right his blog is called the Young restless and reformed the young restless and [Music] reforms now I have to tell pages but I spare you everything so that you can have Mark right Mark Deborah in a few minutes let me conclude by simply laying out several pastoral implications very quickly of the new perspective on Paul according to right number one primero the loss of once for all justification as Lays does although Tom Wright doesn't mean it to sound like medieval Catholicism for those who understand how the medieval Catholic view of justification worked out in people's lives it sounds awfully similar yes The View held by Tom on Final justification of his horrible implications for the doctrine of assurance ten consequences I mentioned that one briefly at the round table number three it tends to give his view tends to generate a certain view of Rewards now the doctrine of rewards in the New Testament needs to be worked into the doctrine of justification very carefully would take me too long to attempt it now but I pass on to you an illustration from C.