Subtle Appeal

In this part of the sermon: Martin introduces the 'subtle appeal' of the New Perspective, noting its attraction to evangelicals concerned with covenant centrality and its perceived role in countering…

Martin uses the humorous analogy of 'covenant chewing gum and covenant deodorant' to illustrate the imbalanced 'covenant romanticism' that overextends the concept of covenant beyond its proper biblical scope.

However, there is around today what one has called a kind of imbalanced covenant romanticism that has captured current study of Paul in which the covenant with Israel has become the unexamined basis for resolving all questions about his soteriology. We have covenant families, covenant businesses, covenant schools, covenant this and covenant that. Before you know it, we'll be able to buy covenant chewing gum and covenant deodorant. I did have something else there, but I thought, no, that'd be too crude, so I took that out.

0:59 - 1:25 Read in full sermon

Driving home: Our faith in Christ does not free us from works, but from false opinions concerning works. It is from the foolish presumption that justification is acquired by works.

The analogy of asking 'which leg do you want me to chop off?' is used to highlight the absurdity of the New Perspective's false dichotomy between Christ's lordship and justification, implying they are inseparable.

As one has rightly commented, to ask the question, is the gospel about Christ's lordship or justification by faith, is a bit like asking the question, which leg do you want me to chop off? Furthermore, the new perspective argues that Paul and his doctrine of justification is not addressing obedience to the law as such, but Jewish exclusivism. The works of the law Paul sets over against his doctrine of justification are Jewish boundary markers by which the Gentiles were excluded from God's covenant people. Otherwise, Jews and Christians were not at odds about the importance and place of obeying...

2:59 - 3:34 Read in full sermon

Driving home: Our faith in Christ does not free us from works, but from false opinions concerning works. It is from the foolish presumption that justification is acquired by works.

A quote from Martin Luther is used to refute the caricature that the Reformers separated faith and works, clarifying that Luther distinguished between faith freeing from false opinions concerning works, not from works themselves.

There are a lot of antinomians in our day who abuse the doctrine of justification in that way as there were in Paul's day. But the reformed doctrine of justification that's set forth in our confessional standards does not teach that how we live doesn't matter. On the contrary, for example, the Westminster Confession, the Baptist Confession, both state in the chapter on justification in paragraph 2, that faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness is the alone instrument of justification, yet it is not alone in the person justified but is ever accompanied with all other sav...

4:36 - 5:12 Read in full sermon

The point: Know and understand the history of the church and the history of dogma and what these men taught, so you are not vulnerable to misinterpretations.

Ligon Duncan's statement about vulnerability to misrepresentation if one doesn't know what the Reformers said is quoted to underscore the danger of historical and theological ignorance in understanding the New Perspective.

There is, it seems, both a historical and theological ignorance in our day that leaves people open to a teaching like this. As Ligon Duncan comments, if you don't know what the Reformers said, now this is such an important statement because it goes back to the introduction of Dr. Waldron's lectures where he underscored, why it is important for us to know and to understand the history of the church and the history of dogma and what these men taught. He says, If you don't know what the Reformers said, then you are vulnerable to having someone else tell you what they said and tell you wrong, and ...

5:50 - 6:29 Read in full sermon

The point: Know and understand the history of the church and the history of dogma and what these men taught, so you are not vulnerable to misinterpretations.

Lee Gaddis's critique of James Dunn, revealing Dunn's reliance on indirect quotations of Luther, serves as an example of the historical ignorance among some New Perspective scholars.

Lee Gaddis, in an article critiquing James Dunn, takes him to task for his evident lack of first-hand knowledge of Luther's writing and his failure to seriously interact with Luther's own exegesis. After quoting some of the sweeping statements that Dunn makes about Luther and his theology, Gaddis declares that in Dunn's work, he had just quoted, and after a search of Dunn's other writings, it is revealed, quote, that every time Dunn quotes Luther, he has gleaned the quotation or opinion indirectly from another writer rather than from Luther's works themselves. Ligon Duncan, in the article refe...

6:49 - 8:01 Read in full sermon

The point: Know and understand the history of the church and the history of dogma and what these men taught, so you are not vulnerable to misinterpretations.

Carl Truman's essay critiquing the 'want and inaccuracy of pro-NPP historical assessments of Luther and the Reformers' is cited as further evidence of the New Perspective's historical deficiencies.

Lee Gaddis, in an article critiquing James Dunn, takes him to task for his evident lack of first-hand knowledge of Luther's writing and his failure to seriously interact with Luther's own exegesis. After quoting some of the sweeping statements that Dunn makes about Luther and his theology, Gaddis declares that in Dunn's work, he had just quoted, and after a search of Dunn's other writings, it is revealed, quote, that every time Dunn quotes Luther, he has gleaned the quotation or opinion indirectly from another writer rather than from Luther's works themselves. Ligon Duncan, in the article refe...

6:49 - 8:01 Read in full sermon

The point: Know and understand the history of the church and the history of dogma and what these men taught, so you are not vulnerable to misinterpretations.

N.T. Wright's admission of being 'largely ignorant of the Pauline exegesis of all but a few of the Fathers and Reformers' is quoted to demonstrate a significant gap in historical theological knowledge among a leading New Perspective proponent.

I also came across the following very interesting admission by N.T. Wright just a few weeks ago in one of his newest books, The Law and Justification, in one of his newest works. He says, Like too many New Testament scholars, I am largely ignorant of the Pauline exegesis of all but a few of the Fathers and Reformers.

8:02 - 8:19 Read in full sermon

The point: Know and understand the history of the church and the history of dogma and what these men taught, so you are not vulnerable to misinterpretations.

Martin points out that Wright's admitted ignorance of the 16th and 17th centuries bypasses two crucial eras (Puritan and Great Evangelical Awakening) where justification by faith was a major emphasis, highlighting the selective historical engagement.

The Middle Ages and the 17th and 18th centuries had plenty to say about Paul, but I have not read it. And I just note at the bottom, leaving out the 16th and 17th centuries, by the way, bypasses two of the greatest eras in church history, the Puritan era and the era of the Great Evangelical Awakening in Great Britain and North America, both of which, uh, are very, uh, one major emphasis in those periods of church history was the doctrine of justification by faith. Um, now this ignorance is not only a matter of the relative ignorance of historical theology in some New Testament specialists,

8:20 - 8:57 Read in full sermon

The point: Know and understand the history of the church and the history of dogma and what these men taught, so you are not vulnerable to misinterpretations.

Martin shares his experience preaching a sermon series on justification, referring to it as 'the doctrine everybody thinks they know but so few people really do,' illustrating the widespread doctrinal ignorance among evangelicals.

there is a great deal of ignorance of the Bible in the average evangelical church and therefore of what the Bible teaches about justification. I preached a series of sermons a few years ago in our church on the doctrine of justification and I referred to it in the beginning as the doctrine everybody thinks they know but so few people really do.

9:00 - 9:20 Read in full sermon

The point: Be aware that due to little doctrinal and expository preaching, American evangelicals are susceptible to teachings like the New Perspective.

Ligon Duncan's statement that 'the minute you say that justification is not about your relationship with God, it is about relationships in the covenant community, you have already diminished sin' is quoted to show how the New Perspective downplays the gravity of sin.

Justification is all about breaking down social barriers. It's not about how a sinner who stands condemned before God's law with no righteousness of his own can find acceptance with God. As Ligon Duncan puts it, the minute you say that justification is not about your relationship with God, it is about relationships in the covenant community, you have already diminished sin.

9:52 - 10:13 Read in full sermon

The point: Be aware that due to little doctrinal and expository preaching, American evangelicals are susceptible to teachings like the New Perspective.

The New Perspective's dismissal of the 'introspective conscience of the West' (inherited from Augustine, Luther, Calvin) as a problem Paul didn't feel, serves as an example of how they reframe the problem of sin.

Even though some of these men would protest that the issue of forgiveness of sins is important, the reality is that their emphasis upon the breaking down of social barriers constitutes a de-emphasis upon the problem of man's lost and condemned state and sin under the wrath of God. This is the problem, we are told, of that confounded, introspective conscience of the West that we unfortunately inherited from Augustine and Luther and Calvin. That's not a problem Paul felt or his hearers felt or that Jesus felt. That's not a problem Paul felt or his hearers felt or that he speaks to in his doctrin...

10:15 - 10:47 Read in full sermon

Driving home: the minute you say that justification is not about your relationship with God, it is about relationships in the covenant community, you have already diminished sin.

Andrew Sandlin's quote explaining why Christian culture proponents (theonomists) are attracted to the New Perspective illustrates its appeal due to its softening of the gospel-law distinction and championing of Christ's lordship over all spheres.

Andrew Sandlin, who is friendly toward the new perspective, writes, It should come as no surprise that we proponents of Christian culture should be attracted to the new perspective. Attracted, I might add, because we believe it draws close to the biblical picture. For one thing, it softens the radical gospel law distinction that usually, though not always, reduces to a two-kingdom theory. The church is the realm of grace.

12:49 - 13:10 Read in full sermon

Driving home: The doctrine of justification is, in fact, the great ecumenical doctrine.

N.T. Wright's quotes on Paul's doctrine of justification impelling churches into ecumenical tasks and being 'the ecumenical doctrine' are used to demonstrate his explicit ecumenical agenda for the New Perspective.

He says, Paul's doctrine of justification impels the churches in their current fragmented state into the ecumenical task. It cannot be right that the very doctrine which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong at the same table, Galatians 2, should be used as a way of saying that some, who define the doctrine of justification differently, belong at a different table. The doctrine of justification, in other words, is not merely a doctrine about a doctrine which Catholic and Protestant might just be able to agree on as a result of hard ecumenical endeavor. It is itself the ecumenical doctr...

16:10 - 17:16 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: Martin outlines the 'alarming implications' of the New Perspective, arguing that if it is correct, then the entire Protestant Reformation, its leaders, confessions, and catechisms…

Martin uses the Westminster Shorter Catechism's definition of justification as a concrete example to show how the New Perspective would fundamentally disagree with and seek to alter core Reformed confessional statements.

What's that? For example, to borrow a way of illustrating this, here's some Ligon Duncan with some additions of my own. Let's take the shorter catechism. An answer to the question, what is justification?

20:00 - 20:11 Read in full sermon

The point: Recognize that if the New Perspective is right, many beloved hymns expressing traditional justification would be based on false doctrine and need to be discarded.

He lists several beloved hymns ('My hope is built on nothing less,' 'Jesus, thy blood and righteousness,' 'And can it be?') that would need to be removed from hymnals if the New Perspective's doctrine of justification were accepted, illustrating its radical impact on worship.

So we need to change our Catechism if Wright is right. Secondly, if the new perspective is right, we need to rip out of our hymn books many of our favorite hymns and the favorite hymns of our ancestors. My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. Nope.

21:31 - 21:48 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: Martin begins his critique by challenging the New Perspective's foundational assertion that Second Temple Judaism was a 'religion of grace,' primarily based on E.P. Sanders' work…

James Dunn's statement that Sanders' 'covenantal nomism' makes Judaism 'preach good Protestant doctrine' is quoted to highlight the New Perspective's radical reinterpretation of Second Temple Judaism.

Somewhat surprisingly, the picture Sanders painted of what he called covenant gnomism is remarkably like the classic Reformation theology of works. That good works are the consequence and outworking of divine grace, not the means by which that grace is first attained. The Judaism of what Sanders christened as covenantal gnomism can now be seen to preach good Protestant doctrine. That grace is always prior, that human effort is ever the response to divine initiative, that good works are fruit and not the root of salvation.

26:03 - 26:35 Read in full sermon

The point: Do not be convinced that the Judaism of Paul's day was a religion of grace if you have a biblical understanding of what grace is, even after reading Sanders' book.

Martin imagines how Sanders might interpret the Pharisee's self-righteous prayer in Luke 18, suggesting Sanders would attribute it to God's grace, thereby illustrating Sanders' flawed understanding of grace and self-righteousness.

It is not sola gratia salvation by grace alone and it is certainly not to use the words of good Protestant doctrine. It has been wondered how Sanders would interpret our Lord's parable that he stood and prayed with himself God I thank you that I am not like other men. Extortioners, unjust, adulterers or even as this tax collector I fast twice a week I give tithes of all that I possess. Consistent with how he interprets rabbinic literature I can imagine Sanders that he was not like other men because of God's grace. And yet we know that Jesus spoke that parable to those who trusted in themselves...

30:58 - 32:27 Read in full sermon

The point: Do not be convinced that the Judaism of Paul's day was a religion of grace if you have a biblical understanding of what grace is, even after reading Sanders' book.

The list of rabbinic options for atonement (sacrifices, repentance, personal suffering, death) is provided as an example of how Second Temple Judaism's understanding of forgiveness was far from a 'religion of grace' and resembled Roman Catholic penance.

Some argued that the ceremonial sacrifices, particularly on the day of atonement, atoned for sins, but that's not all. Repentance itself was viewed by some as a means of atonement. Also, personal suffering was viewed as a means of atonement. For example, he quotes Rabbi Nehemiah who said, Now, as you can tell, that sounds very similar to Roman Catholic penance theology.

32:56 - 33:28 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: He details flaws in Sanders' approach, including a vague definition of grace, a failure to distinguish between Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, and Sanders' own description of…

Mark Seifried's comments on Sanders' use of 'grace' are quoted to explain how Sanders' paradigm loses biblical contours by not defining grace in relation to Israel's recalcitrance and rebellion.

Mark Seifried makes these comments about Sanders' use of grace. Mark Seifried makes these comments about Sanders' use of grace. For him, that is for Paul, grace does not have to do simply with the priority of divine election and favor. In Sanders' paradigm, grace, or God's gracious election of Israel, loses its biblical contours because it is not defined in relationship to Israel's recalcitrance and rebellion, a condition that Paul regards as extending into the present, Romans 10, 19 to 21.

35:19 - 35:47 Read in full sermon

Driving home: Now, that, my dear friends, is classic Pelagianism. And yet this is what Sanders tells us the rabbis taught.

Cornelius Venema's comment that Sanders' description of 'covenantal nomism' closely resembles 'textbook description of semi-Pelagian teaching' is quoted to show how Sanders unwittingly supports the Reformation argument against a mingling of grace and works.

As Cornelius Venema comments, the irony here is that Sanders' description of covenantal gnomism closely resembles a kind of textbook description of semi-Pelagian teaching and therefore lends unwitting support to the Reformation argument. To put the matter in the traditional language of the doctrine of justification, covenantal gnomism fits rather comfortably with the idea that the justification and acceptance of the righteous now and in the future depends upon the works of obedience to the law that follow and are added to God's gracious initiative. If that is the case, then what Sanders calls ...

38:02 - 39:08 Read in full sermon

Driving home: Now, that, my dear friends, is classic Pelagianism. And yet this is what Sanders tells us the rabbis taught.

Sanders' statement that rabbis 'did not have a doctrine of original sin' and that 'the possibility exists that one might not sin' is quoted to demonstrate that his description of rabbinic teaching is, in fact, classic Pelagianism.

Men have apparently the inborn drive towards rebellion and disobedience, but this is not the same as being born in the state of sinfulness from which liberation is necessary. Sin comes only when man actually disobeys. If he were not to disobey, he would not be a sinner. The possibility exists that one might not sin.

39:08 - 39:26 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: Martin argues that even if rabbinic literature could be strained to show a 'religion of grace,' it doesn't reflect what common Jews actually believed, who likely understood it…

The example of Protestant denominations having evangelical creeds (like the Church of England's 39 Articles or Southern Baptists' Reformed roots) but often not reflecting those beliefs in practice (e.g., decisional regeneration) is used to illustrate that rabbinic literature may not accurately reflect common Jewish belief.

Now, we all know that in our own day in the statements of theologians or creeds of denominations are not always an accurate reflection of what is actually believed and practiced in the hearts and lives of the rank and file people and pastors. For example, most Protestant denominations have an evangelical creed. The Church of England has 39 articles which contain basically good Reformed doctrine, but is what is written in that document an accurate reflection of what is really believed in most of the Anglican and Episcopalian churches? No, it's not.

41:08 - 41:39 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: He asserts that more recent studies debunk Sanders' model and, most importantly, the New Testament itself soundly contradicts the idea of Second Temple Judaism as a religion of…

The book 'Justification and Variegated Nomism' is cited as a lengthy scholarly work that challenges Sanders' model, demonstrating that his 'pretty picture' of Second Temple Judaism is wrong and based on selective literature.

I've listed a few of the books I'm aware of in the footnotes, some of which I've read all or parts of. One very lengthy book that challenges Sander's is Justification and Variegated Gnomism, Volume 1, edited by D.A. Carson, Peter O'Brien, and Mark Seifert.

44:27 - 44:46 Read in full sermon

Driving home: The evidence is so clear that it takes about three years of graduate work and theological studies on average to erase it.

A comment that 'it takes about three years of graduate work and theological studies on average to erase' the average Christian's 'dim view of first-century Judaism' is quoted to humorously highlight the clear New Testament evidence against the New Perspective's view.

As one has commented, If the average Bible-reading Christian takes a dim view of first-century Judaism, it is evident where he got that dim view. Read through the New Testament and simply mark every polemical comment directed at the Pharisees, Sadducees, the circumcision of the Jews, and so on. The evidence is so clear that it takes about three years of graduate work and theological studies on average to erase it. Here might be a good place to point out that when Sanders gets to the part where he tries to compare the picture of Judaism that he has gathered with the writings of Paul, he makes s...

49:20 - 50:01 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: Martin highlights Sanders' skeptical presuppositions, evidenced by his exclusion of canonical New Testament books and his refusal to make value judgments on the superiority of…

The observation that Sanders' book index lists 'truth ultimate' with page numbers that are all blank is presented as a striking example of his skeptical presuppositions and disinterest in ultimate truth.

Under the heading truth ultimate, he has three pages, page numbers. Page 30, page 32, and page 430. When you turn to those pages, guess what? They're all blank.

51:37 - 51:47 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: The New Perspective's hermeneutics are problematic because they interpret the New Testament based on controversial scholarly reconstructions of extra-biblical literature…

A quote from Waters outlining the New Perspective's logic ('We know that Paul did not oppose Judaism as a religion of works... Therefore, Paul's opposition... must have been based on some other grounds') is used to expose the circular reasoning based on questionable scholarly reconstructions.

These are hermeneutical problems that grow out. They grow out of and are related to the historical problems we just considered. First of all, as we've seen, the new perspective seeks to interpret the New Testament on the basis of controversial scholarly reconstructions of Second Temple Judaism. For example, the logic goes like this, quoting from Waters, We know that Paul did not oppose Judaism as a religion of works, and we know anyway that Judaism was not a religion of works but a religion of grace.

56:04 - 56:36 Read in full sermon

The point: Reject human interpretations of history and Bible background when they contradict careful exposition of how the Scriptures themselves depict that background, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

N.T. Wright's argument that the New Testament is 'problematic for gaining a proper picture of Pharisaism' because of rabbinic denigration of the school of Shammai is cited as an example of elevating extra-biblical literature over Scripture.

In fact, in many cases, the extra-biblical literature is elevated to a more determinative position in our understanding of First-Century Judaism and of Paul than the New Testament is. For example, at one point, N.T. Wright argues that the New Testament is problematic for gaining a proper picture of Pharisaism, and Eddie Goodwin actually pointed this out to me in his review of N.T. Wright, in his full review, excellent review. I was able to confirm that this week because the New Testament, the people of God, was a book I never could get my hands on, but Dr. Waldron had it in his study, so I was...

57:11 - 57:56 Read in full sermon