What happened on the cross? NT Wright & Tom Schreiner. 500th podcast episode.

Good afternoon and welcome to Unbelievable. I'm Justin Riley, your host for the program, which every week brings you dialogue of different kinds between people from differing perspectives. We aim to bring you good conversations here on Unbelievable. Have been doing so for nearly 11 years now, but a bit of a special milestone for today's program. If you are geeky enough to go and tot up all of the shows available on the podcast online and so on, you'll find that today is the 500th podcast episode of Unbelievable, believe it or not. So the podcast began a little later after the show began on air here on Premiere Christian Radio, but it's great to have reached that milestone. I know many people who still go right the way back to what is it, 2007 when we started podcasting this program to plunder the archives of Unbelievable. But thank you for making the show what it is today. What's happening on today's show? Well, of course, I'm going to be introducing my guests. So we're doing a theological debate on the show on the atonement, but of course, the last week may not have been such a good one for you or it may have been brilliant, depending on your view of the outcome of the US election as Donald Trump was swept to power. I'm going to be giving you some brief reflections of my own on that later on on the program as well as some of the responses that came in to the show where we debated whether Christians can or should vote for Donald Trump. So lots to look forward to later on on the program. After Unbelievable between four and five this afternoon, former gangster John Lawson speaks to Sam Hales about his Christian conversion. Also some important news to come. The cancellation of the can we agree to disagree event that was coming up on Monday the 14th of November. Unfortunately due to circumstances beyond our control, not able to put that on. I'll be telling you about an alternative event you may be interested in though a little later on. Right now time to get into today's program. ♪ You're unbelievable ♪ So today we're asking what happened on the cross as a empty right leading British New Testament scholar and retired angke and bishop joins me again. His new book The Day the Revolution began reconsidering the meaning of Jesus' crucifixion. Once again challenges commonly held Christian beliefs. He argues that Jesus' death on the cross wasn't just to absolve us of our sins. It was actually the beginning of a revolution commissioning the Christian faithful to a new vocation, a royal priesthood responsible for restoring and reconciling all of God's creation. Well today in conversation with Tom Wright is another Tom, Thomas Schreiner, New Testament scholar at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary author of many books such as his commentary on Romans. He's had a chance to read Tom's new book and will be engaging him on some of the questions it raises, particularly from a reformed perspective. We're gonna be talking about God's wrath, how we'd look at penal substitutionary atonement theory and much more besides hope you enjoy today's program. (upbeat music) And Tom and Tom work along to the show, great to have you both with me. Well Tom Wright of course was here for a listener Q&A last week. So perhaps we'll start with you, Thomas Schreiner. Tell us a little bit about yourself and what you do. - Yes, I teach New Testament at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. And I just step down from being a preaching pastor at a church where I served for 17 years. - Wow, so you've got a lot of experience under your belt. And you've had a chance to read Tom Wright's new book, The Day the Revolution began. You yourself have obviously invested a lot of time in these kinds of issues. And what particularly has drawn you to this aspect of Christian theology? - Well, I think the cross is the heart of our faith and our understanding of God's work for human beings. So I enormously enjoyed reading Tom's work, Tom's an amazing writer and I don't know how he does all that he does. He must write in his sleep, do you Tom? - That's a good question. It may be the other way round, sleep on a write. - So when he writes the popular books, they just come out. And yeah, great to have you on the program today, Thomas Schreiner, thank you for joining me. And we look forward to what you have to say about the book and I'm really looking forward to just an interesting engagement. And perhaps though we should set this up Tom Wright by talking about what led you to write this particular book. I mean, atonement and different atonement theories and so on have been causing dissension and controversy in Christian circles for a little while now. What made you decide now was the time to lay your cards on the table? - Well, actually, it's been a matter of trying to find out what my cards were, 15 years ago or so, I published a book on the resurrection, a big book, The Resurrection and Son of God, 2003. I suppose it was 13 years ago. And I realized having done that and thought a lot about the resurrection, that if I was taking seriously the idea that our ultimate destination is not quote going to heaven, but rather new heavens and new earth. And I explored that then in surprise by hope. Then all the language about Christ died from my sins so that I could go to heaven might need to be revisited. And actually when I was still in Westminster in the early years of the century before I went to Durham, I had intended to work on this. Then when I went to Durham, other things kind of got in the way, shall we say, and I never followed it through, but I've had in mind then that maybe we should re-explore some of the bits of the New Testament that say very specific other things about the result of Jesus' death. Starting with Revelation five, which says that the result of the slaughtered lamb's death is that we might be the royal priesthood, the kingdom and priests, which didn't sound exactly like going to heaven. It was a rather different thing, more like a vocation. And so that was bubbling along in the back of my mind. And so I decided a couple of years ago to do a set of lectures on this and to explore the themes in public. And my students, graduates, and faculty, instant Andrews came to the lectures, bless them, and asked all sorts of interesting questions. And things got turned upside down and inside out. And this book is the result of that. And it's been really exciting to see what my mind is a bigger picture than I have preached on the cross a thousand times and written about it from every possible angle. So I thought, so this is all kind of fresh exploration and quite exciting at that. And it's been quite a journey. - And as I say, the issues around penal substitutionary at home in particular have often exercised evangelicals and Christians of different types. And I suppose a lot of people will be coming to your book with that sort of a question in mind. What's Tom going to say about that particular view of the atonement? I mean, I know that you did an interview recently with Christianity today. And in that, you talk that they asked you this question about in Christ alone a hugely popular modern hymn by Stuart Towne and Keith Getty. But people have divided over that one line which seemed to express a kind of penal substitutionary atonement theology. But on the cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied for every sin on him was laid here in the death of Christ I live. And you said in response, and I'm quoting here, I've often said that if a church wants to sing that hymn and I agree it's a great hymn in most other respects, then at least every second time they should sing the love of God was satisfied instead at that point. So, do you have a problem with penal substitutionary atonement, I guess, is my first question? - No, I don't have a problem with it. And I hope that we'll draw this out later. I have always believed in penal substitution. I still do. What I've come to realise is that there are several different things that penal substitution that rather modern phrase can denote, and it all depends which story you're putting that into. And I'm sure that Tom Trina will want to draw this out further. But it seems to me that the Bible is telling a very definite story which is about the rescuing love of God. This is not to say that God is not wrathful against sin or anything like that. That way, as we all know, lies some kind of soggy liberalism which doesn't actually take seriously the holiness of God. But my fear is, and I've tried to moderate this as best I can, but I think it's there, that many people, when they hear people talking about penal substitution, they have a vision of an angry, bullying, malevolent God. And even though I don't actually personally know any preachers today who would say that, whenever I say this in any Christian context, people are nodding and saying, "Yeah, that's what I thought we were supposed to believe when I was growing up and things like that." Okay, I'm sure we'll get into this with our other guest, Tom Trina, on the program today. If you want more info on the book, as I say, at antirightonline.org/revolution. And I'm looking forward to hearing what both my guests have to say and what you have to say as well. As I've said before, we love to hear back from you, continue the conversation. If you want to email in [email protected], you can also of course send me a message via Facebook or on Twitter, tell me what you thought of today's show. Add unbelievable JB for the Twitter account. Facebook.com/unbelievablejb. And of course, Tom always laughs when I recite these. But you can find us online as well. You can subscribe to the podcast. Hey, why not download some of the previous shows that Tom Wright has appeared on with me? premierChristianradio.com/unbelievable for all of your unbelievable needs. So let's get into today's discussion. (upbeat music) Unbelievable with Justin Briarly. - Tom Schreiner, let's come to you, first of all. You've had a brief chance to read the book and go through it and pull out some of the things that you wanted to talk with Tom Wright about on today's program. Why don't you start us off and just give us what you enjoyed about Tom's book, first of all? - Well, I think one of Tom's great strengths is his grasp of the entire story. He presents to us the story. a scripture and there's so many New Testament scholars are very good at looking at the individual pieces or a paragraph or even an individual book, but Tom is outstanding and he's helped me enormously to look at the big picture. So I thank you for that, Tom. You've been so helpful, I think, to so many of us in that regard. And I think Tom helps us see in this book that what Christ has accomplished on the cross is such that we have a future destiny, a future vocation, and a new heavens and a new earth that Christ has conquered the powers that inform us and disable us. I think that's all fantastic. I totally agree. Okay, and so obviously though you've got some differences of opinion in certain areas and we'll get to that in the course of the show. What for you is the big picture for you of where you maybe would disagree with Tom in the way he handles some of those big issues? Yeah, I suppose from what Tom has written, it's more a matter of emphasis. I mean, maybe the first place we could start, he speaks negatively of a works contract or a works covenant. I think I put myself in that category of believing in a works covenant. But I wouldn't use the word contract. I think it's a works covenant when you think of Adam and Eve in the garden. And a covenant commands works in my mind. It isn't just rules and regulations that the commands that are given in a covenant signify a relationship. Okay, so just for those who maybe may not be following exactly what is meant by a works covenant and so on, just give us a sense of what that is, first of all, Tom Schreiner. And then we'll see what Tom Wright has to say in response. So I would say in the garden, God demanded that when they pay him to maintain their relationship with him, that obedience, however, is not merely just a rule or regulation. It's a way of expressing their love for God, their whether they worship God. And I think Tom Wright says, I really agree with him on this. Fundamentally, the rules and regulations have to be understood in terms of idolatry, what you worship. But it seemed to me at times that Tom erects a little bit of a false dichotomy between those commands, rules and regulations and idolatry. So he speaks somewhat negatively of a works contract. Whereas I see that in a very positive way that we relate to God, God gives us commands. What it means to worship and love and adore him is to keep those coming. Okay, be interested to, do you want to respond to that? Yeah, thank you, Tom. And I understand I think way you're coming from because in all sorts of ways, it's where I have spent much of my own life. And it's only really in the last 10 years of reflecting on this that I've come back. Really, as I say, on the basis of particular biblical texts which have nudged me into seeing things a bit differently. And I think you have just articulated, if I may put it like this, the most attractive possible interpretation of a works covenant. But I still think that at the heart of it, what we have in Genesis 1, it's interesting we all go back to Genesis 1, isn't it? We still got to go back then. I love that. It is not God saying, here is what it will look like if you obey me. And then later on, well, actually, you disobeyed. So now you've got to leave the garden. And then the whole of human history depends on how we Adam's descendants somehow are rescued from our own disobedience because Jesus then takes on the works covenant on our behalf. And I want to say, actually, what I see in Genesis 1, 26, 28 is not works, but in that sense, but vocation, the image bearing vocation to be people who reflect the praises of creation to God and reflect the love and wisdom and stewardship of God into creation. And it is this vocation rather than works, which I mean, okay, maybe that is a false polarization in terms of what some theologians have done, but again and again and again reading books about the work of Christ and the larger picture. I have seen this that it ends up, if you go with the works, whether you call it a covenant or contract, with works dominating the whole picture, that God wanted what can be called works and you express it very elegantly in terms of obedience, maintaining a relationship. But actually, I want to say what God intended was not just maintaining a relationship, but God intended to work in the world through human beings, which was a matter of what revelation calls the royal priesthood. And hence idolatry worshiping that which isn't God is central to then humanness, fracturing and people behaving in ways which do not reflect God. And by the way, that is partly for me a reflection on Romans 118 that the first thing Paul says is wrong with humans in Romans 118 is not sin, but assebia, ungodliness. And ungodliness leads to injustice and out of that fracturing of the human vocation, all other things follow. So this could get quite technical and I see just in rolling his eyes and background here. But actually, it's pretty important because it's like the foundation that you build on. And if the foundation is just slightly different from what the text actually says, then when you build several stories up and get to the gospel itself, it'll look very different. And that's where the idea of Jesus as the one who did the works on our behalf so that we don't have to do them or something, I think is in fact a very specific distortion of what the New Testament actually says. And I think Tom, let's agree. I hope we can agree that we are both committed to saying that we want to be biblical theologians that we're not trying to say the Bible says expert, I believe why. We are both committed to saying, let's go back to the whole Bible and see as best we can what the whole of it is saying. Tom Schreiner, go ahead, what's your take on then Tom's view that this is more about the vocation that was if you like, not fulfilled by humans and Christ takes on rather than the works, contract as you call it? Yeah, my fundamental response is, I don't think it's an either or. I think it's a both and that was my main criticism if I couldn't put it that way of the book. It felt to either orish to me. Yeah, and maybe Tom's just wanting to say, look, this piece has been ignored, it's been slided and I want to really highlight this. But then it does play into, if I could I think Tom underestimates God's wrath hell. So, so let me just let me just say something Tom and I'd love to have you respond. The future vocation that's, I totally agree, it's not just works and that's it and we also need to think of our vocation and our future role in God's kingdom and we have lots to do with the new creation, yes and yes and yes. But I also want to say, it's fundamental to the biblical story, are you going to get into the new creation? Are you going to be there and that you speak often negatively of the petulant deal of God's wrath, but God is wrathful and people are in a wrong relationship with them. It's absolutely crucial that we tell them the good news. I would say that Jesus died for them was their substitute, their penal substitute, so that they can be rightly related to him and enter into new creation and do all the things you're talking about. And I would say in our Western world, that's a great, great need. I mean, how many people in England and the United States more and more, they don't go to church at all. They don't know the gospel. Well, that's a great concern of mine. So I say yes and yes, but it wasn't balanced enough. Yeah, I see that. And I suppose I want to reply in exactly the same way that from what I know of the kind of evangelicalism that I have lived in and with from much of my own life, but which I see more and more and you just summed it up very, very neatly there that it's about our relationship to God. And I want to say, of course, that relationship is important and vital. And that's in a sense what the whole story is about. But when I then go back and look at the biblical story, I don't see that as the primary thing. And one of the things in this book that I'm trying to do particularly is to rehabilitate Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the four gospels as centers of meaning for understanding the cross. And one of the puzzles that I had over the last few years reading as many books on the crosses I could get my hands on is how often again and again, the gospels were actually sidelined apart from just the odd proof text here or there. And I think that's because we have not talked about the kingdom of God. We've talked about a relationship with God, which I agree is absolutely important. Paul says in Galatians now that you know God or rather have come to be known by God, et cetera, that knowing, that mutual knowing remains absolutely at the heart. But what we've done is downplayed the Kingdom of God and in the four Gospels, the death of Jesus. And I think you will agree with this Tom. The death of Jesus is the thing which defeats the dark power that has usurped the rule of the Creator God over the world. And the people who follow Jesus are not merely supposed to have a relationship with Him, but are specifically called to be Kingdom people by God's Spirit in and for God's world. And it seems to me that is actually central to the meaning of the cross in the Gospels in Revelation. And actually, I think in Paul as well. And if we simply say, "Yeah, there are all these people who don't go to church and they need to know that they should have a relationship with God," well, yes, I agree with that, but actually the Kingdom of God is not a secondary issue in the Bible, it's the primary issue and the relationship takes place within that. It may simply be a matter of balance, which is related, no doubt, to our respective cultures and so on. But I'd love to know what you think about what I then do with the Gospels and how I see a theology of the cross present right through Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not just in the odd proof text. Yeah, I think your exposition of the Kingdom is enormously helpful. I would argue that the penal substitution, I just had a student do a dissertation on the atonement in Luke. And I think he rightly argues that the notion of penal substitution is stitched into the story in more profound ways than some have seen. But I want to say that I'm saying yes to the theme you're advertising and proclaiming and promulgating, that is the Kingdom is central, yes, sometimes as evangelicals, we privatize and individualize our faith. But my problem is it seems like in emphasizing that, when you speak of the wrath of God, it's usually negative in the book. You don't say yes, but then your emphasis is all in the other part of the story. And maybe there's a difference between us here and that is I think you emphasize sin fundamentally vocationally, and I think the fundamental sin is relational. Maybe we disagree with that. That's very interesting. I mean, let me say about Luke. It's interesting, I've just written an article about Richard Hayes' new book on the Gospels. And one of the things where I disagree with him on is that he continues with the line that many have said that Luke doesn't actually have much interpretation of the cross. And I fundamentally disagree with that because I agree with your student, at least in outline, obviously I haven't seen his work, that Luke has stitched the meaning of what I too call penal substitution into the story. Whether it's Jesus dying instead of Barabbas or the Brighan bus beside him saying we are getting what we deserve that this man has done nothing wrong, and lots of other things like that, which Luke in particular draws out within the larger kingdom framework. So I'm fully with you on that, although I do think that then the notion of penal substitution itself needs to be nuanced so that we are sure that we're saying the right things about it and not the wrong things. Can I break in, just why don't we talk about it now? At least make a start on it before we go to a break. I mean, going back to that phrase from the hymn in Christ alone on the cross that Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied. I mean, is that what penal substitution is for you? God pouring out His wrath on Jesus Christ instead of us. He pays the penalty in that sense, He's substitutes for us. And this wrath of God, what is it? What is it against? And so on. Because you say there are caricatures of that, which you find very unhelpful, presumably. The ones that make God look like a bully, you say it makes it look like it's for God so hated the world, the wrath of God so loved the world and so on. So if you are being asked to elucidate what you do believe this wrath of God is and how it plays into something we might call penal substitution, what is that called? Okay, let me say to my friend and colleague Tom Schreiner, I do believe that God hates all that defaces and destroys His wonderful world and especially His image-bearing human creatures. If God doesn't hate child abuse and apartheid and genocide and so on, then He is not a good God. And God does hate those things and all the sundry other things which you and I sadly have colluded with and have contributed to, which deface ourselves and the world around us and other people. God is wrathful in that sense against that because He is the good and wise creator and loving creator who wants the best for His creation and wrath is the negative side of that wanting the best for. And that as we just, Justin and I just did another program we were talking about hell and about final judgment and I do think there is throughout the New Testament, the serious warning of the fact that the choices we make in this life are choices forever and that one can choose to be not reflecting God into the world. I do think however that idolatry is in so much of biblical thought the primary sin that it is worshipping that which is not God and that's what causes our humaneness to deconstruct which flows out into sin in all its forms. So when when we then talk about subject and of course the phrase penal substitution is a modern phrase which is picked up energy from various modern debates indeed 19th and 20th century debates not even 16th century debates, but it meant what it meant within particular modern context. And my real problem goes right back to that question of what are we saved for and it's not about oh dear I have failed to jump over this moral bar therefore I'm not going to heaven fortunately Jesus has jumped over it for me or if you like God was going to punish me but then somebody else stood in the way and God punched him on the nose instead. So now it's all right and I can and I can go to heaven after all that is sadly and I've had this conversation dozens and dozens of times that is sadly what a lot of people in churches and now sometimes outside churches think they were told they ought to believe and I want to say okay it's a low grade caricature no wise theologian certainly nobody called Tom Schreiner would ever preach the gospel like that however it is what a lot of people have heard. So how then do I put penal substitution together and as Tom will know there are all sorts of debates about Romans 3 I rather doubt we can get into those in a radio program but actually a lot of the discussion focuses back there but for me the heart of it is in Romans 8 verses 3 and 4 where Paul says God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a sin offering condemned sin in the flesh the flesh of the Messiah that is in other words Paul. In other words Paul isn't saying God punished Jesus he's saying God punished sin sin with a capital S if you like in the flesh of Jesus that is clearly penal it's about punishment it is clearly substitutionary because there is no condemnation for those who are in the Messiah and this happens for Paul in a way which Paul has set up the context in such a way that it does not admit of the caricatures which so often result. So I'm very clear that there is such a thing as penal substitution I would go to Romans 8 for it I'd love to know where the Tom agrees with that we will come back to Tom Schreiner for whether he does think you've you've adequately dealt with it there Tom right in just a moment's time we're going to a short break this is unbelievable the show that aims to get you thinking bringing you a theological discussion today on the atonement what happened on the cross we're asking in the company of Tom right and Tom Schreiner and Tom writes new book the day the revolution began. He's the subject of our conversation today join us again in a short moments time in July 2016 unbelievable the conference took place in London a day for any Christian who struggles to share their faith with others I'm just in briley and I hosted a fantastic day of inspirational sessions with J John Gary Habermass Beth Grove and many others now you've got the chance to watch and listen to over 12 hours of this empowering conference featuring evangelism apologetics and the resurrection. Get your DVD at premier dot org dot UK slash shop and become a confident evangelist today. You're listening to unbelievable on premier Christian radio welcome back to today's edition of unbelievable I'm just in briley and this is the program here on premier Christian radio which every Saturday helps to get you thinking bringing different points of view together for debate often it's a Christian and non Christian today though two Christians debating a theological issue Tom right and Tom Schreiner on atonement theology what happened on the cross we're asking in light of Tom right new book the day the revolution began reconsidering the meaning of Jesus his crucifixion if you'd like to get in touch today do encourage you to write in via email unbelievable at premier dot org dot UK you can also of course do that online get in touch via the social media follow us on Twitter at unbelievable JB or Facebook dot com slash unbelievable JB and if you want to find links to both of my guests and their work Tom Schreiner and Tom right go to today's program at the website premier Christian radio dot com slash unbelievable do tell your friends about it as well and why not check out some of the other resource who got there in the run up to Christmas you might be interested in purchasing your own copy of the unbelievable conference that took place earlier this year in London on DVD and audio CD or indeed the digital download premier Christian radio dot com slash unbelievable still to come later on your feedback especially on Trump versus Clinton of course [BLANK_AUDIO] Has been settled now, at least by the voting public, but we'll hear what some of you had to say in response to the issues that were raised in the programme we did a couple of weeks ago. For now back into our discussion as we continue to talk about what happened on the cross, Thomas Schreiner, New Testament scholar at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and NT Wright, a leading British New Testament scholar, with me for discussion here in the studio. So, Tom Schreiner, we heard how Tom Wright characterises Roth against sin, and that what God is punishing is sin in that sense, in the flesh of the Messiah and so on. This is his understanding of what we are to mean by a more nuanced view of penal substitutionary atonement. He says he doesn't like the caricature. He doesn't think you do either. Okay, but is he oversimplifying or misinterpreting your own view of penal substitution? What do you say? If I could just back up for a moment about the hymn by the getties, and I'd say the wrath of God is satisfied, and there's been some objections to that hymn, but twice in that hymn they talk about the love of God. So, I feel like when people complain about that hymn, and you look at the getties work as a whole, they often, often talk about the love of God. They have this one hymn where they talk about the wrath of God. I think it's faithful to the New Testament evidence, and so I didn't hear Tom criticising it here, but I just want to defend what's in there. What Tom said about punishing sin rather than Jesus, I'm open to thinking through that more, but my first response says, I don't think again is either or Jesus has been punished suffering on the cross. I think that's God's holy righteous wrath. It's beautiful in the sense that it represents His holiness, but at the same time, Tom so wonderfully emphasizes in the cross we must also emphasize the love of God. But I think, when I read this book, I think Tom could write a book where he puts together both in a way only Tom can, in a beautiful narrative in a way that I think is more balanced. I mean, you can hear my fun, and then I'll complain. I think Tom can write the narrative of the new substitution in a positive way, linking it with what he said about Christ's victory over the powers and our vocation. And in my mind, Tom didn't quite do it in this book. That's too bad. I have often said to the students, Tom, that this book, like everything I write, is a kind of an interim report. This is where I think I am at the moment, and the older I get, the more I realize, if I've learned all this much in the last 10 or 15 years, I'm hoping I'm going to learn a similar amount in the next 15 years. And maybe this kind of stimulus is what I need to have yet another go. But what do you think about, I mean, can I ask you what do you think of my treatment of Romans 3, 21 to 26? Because so much of the normal evangelical preaching of the gospel is done on the basis of what people call the Romans road. Here is Romans which says, you've all sinned, you can't save yourselves. Fortunately God has punished Jesus. So now you're going to heaven. And I'm saying, that's what people have heard again and again. And I'm saying, actually, Romans 1 to 4 doesn't work quite like that. I mean, you've written commentaries on Romans as I have. What did you think of my treatment of Romans 3? Well, I think we differ some on that. I'm more traditional in my reading of Romans 3, 25 and 26. For those of us who don't have the photographic memory for Bible verses, could you just elucidate what Romans 3, 25, 26 is? Well, the righteousness of God is, I'm paraphrasing. And I'm paraphrasing, according to my understanding, that the righteousness of God is satisfied, propitiated in the death of Jesus. But I think it comes back to in Romans, I think the fundamental sin of Israel is not vocational but relational. The vocation is important, but I think when Paul actually identifies their sins very rhetorically, hyperbolicly, but he talks about stealing, robbing temples, adultery. He doesn't indict them for not bringing the good news to the Gentiles, but I think he indicts them for hypocrisy. Now, I think that relates to vocation, but it seems to me the relation also the foundation for the vocational, and if I understand you, it seems to me you've flipped that. Well, that's very interesting because actually, yeah, I'm restraining myself because really we want the Greek testaments out in front of us and we want, you know, to be going at the text. But those who are listening who do want to follow it up, Romans 2 verses 17 through to 24, I think is absolutely crucial for understanding what Paul then says in Romans 1 following, and particularly in 321, 26. And it was very interesting, Tom, in your summary of 325 following when you said that the righteousness of God is satisfied by the propitiation in Jesus. Actually, the phrase righteousness of God, I thought most commentators were agreed that at least in verses 25 and 26, it refers to the covenant faithfulness of God, the faithfulness of God to his covenant with Israel. Now, we may not want to take that any further, but it's just very interesting that we all do this. We have a different read on that. Yeah, well, and it'd be fun sooner or later we must do a seminar on that, but I think. I'm closer to cramfield on that. Yeah, I can tell, although even cramfield agrees that in 25 and 26 it means covenant faithfulness, but not in 21. There's a trouble as we now sound like two professors, you know, mumbling into our bids in a long seminar. But it is really important because so many people that I know, and I did a lot of work with young people, and the first half of my public ministry was mostly with young people, and that I would hear them talk about the Romans' road, and meaning Romans 1 to 4 gives you the question of how you can be justified, how you can be saved, etc. And then 5 to 8 is how to behave, 9 to 11 is a bit about Israel, and then 12 to 16 is more about ethics. And really it's as an exegy, I want to say no, it doesn't work like that. And I think Tom, you and I might disagree with some of the lines taken by some of the 16th century reformers, but let me put it like this. I think Western Christianity as a whole has been trying to write footnotes as it were to the reformers, but what I think happened was that in the Middle Ages, the great medieval church was so fixated about going to heaven and either avoiding purgatory or spending as little time as possible in it. And the reformers I think were trying to give biblical answers to the medieval questions, and I honor them because they were trying to give biblical answers to those questions. But I want to say that actually the Bible says those were the wrong questions. Now please can we go back to the 1st century and get the right ones. Are you happy with that? Well, let's talk about the reformers because this is an area you wanted to come on to, Tom Shreiner, both the way the reformers deal with the atonement and indeed the early church fathers. But what do you make of Tom's view there that essentially the reformers, you know, kind of went off, you know, we're going against the issues of their time and perhaps we need to kind of recalibrate for today. I certainly agree that they were interacting with the issues of their day, but I would say if you look at the early church fathers, and here I think Tom and I would differ, I think the early church fathers were looking at this really the same question. In other words, it's a vital question that the church has always asked, it's a fundamental question, who's going to be cursed and who's going to be blessed. So I don't think that's unique to the reformational time. You know, I think you see it in the epistle of diagnosis. I think you see it in Justin Martyr, the epistle of Barnabas, you see it in Augustin. So it seems to me that they didn't ask the wrong question, but I think Tom is helpful to say there's more than that, but I would say not last. Yeah, I mean, that's obviously fine as an outline, although it seems to me that the way that the second century writers who just instance talking about the cross and the results of the cross, it's actually very different from the way in which Luther and Calvin and the great reformers. And I should say, I'm a fan of the reformers, William Tyndell, the great English-early reformers, one of my heroes, when I'm in London as I am at the moment, I often make a pilgrimage and go and stand with honor by his statue and thank God for his work. So I'm not anti-reformation anti-reformers. I just think that all of them, like all of us, were addressing the questions of their time, which particularly in the Middle Ages was very much about how do I go to heaven, how do I go to heaven, how do I go to heaven. And really, I do not see that in the New Testament. I do see the permanence of a relationship between God and his creatures and through Jesus that is now available and open, but I much, much more see the kingdom of God coming on earth as in heaven. Jesus didn't want us to pray, thy kingdom come to take me to heaven. It's thy kingdom come on earth as in heaven. Isn't this what Tom, Tom, trying to you have been saying to Tom is that you feel that have to be in that kingdom, you have to do something. How do you enter the new creation? Well, you enter the new creation because the Gospel of Jesus catches you up and it finds you and it transforms you and it enables you to believe and it enables you to say Jesus is Lord and then on that basis you don't then say. And I know many people have said to me that people who are working with churches in America that folk have come to faith and they now say this is great, I'm going to heaven. But what am I here for in the meantime? What am I supposed to be doing? Tom Schreiner, then, is your view that Tom right here is kind of too much sidelineing that the importance of that moment on the cross when our sins are forgiven, when our this exchange takes place if you like? Yeah, exactly, exactly. I think what Tom is saying is absolutely right. We have a world where millions are not in a relationship with God and on the way to enter that new creation and the wonderful vocation we have. And I want to say penal substitution, it's foundational for entering that new creation. And that's why Tom, I want Tom to write the other book, it celebrates that. Well, the frustrating thing is I rather thought that I had and that I do say very clearly in this book, maybe not clearly enough, I thought I had, that I do believe in penal substitution, but not of the works, well, the works contract we come back to that. It just seems to me that sets up the whole thing in terms of God putting out a structure of what we have to do, we all fail, but Jesus does it instead. And that it seems to me is a distortion of both old testament and new testament. And this is not to downgrade sin, it's not to downgrade. Roth, I know that often people, not Tom trying to himself, but others maybe in the wider tradition he represents, who accused people like me of going soft on hell or judgment or sin as they were liberals. And it'd be jolly funny in the Church of England, if anyone said, oh, Tom writes such a liberal, because most people thought I was one of the most conservative patients there was. But so I think you and I are now together pushing for a more detailed new one thing of what penal substitution does mean, and perhaps what it doesn't mean. Go ahead, Tom, I'm trying to, because I'm getting the sense from you, Tom Schreiner, that you're saying, okay, I love the big picture stuff. And yes, of course, we're saved in order to be part of this kingdom revolution and so on. But it sounds like you'd like more specifics from Tom right on, the importance of making that decision, having that fact that Jesus does take on our sins and so on. Now obviously you can differ over the exact nature of what that taking on of sin and the substitutionary nature of that is. But it sounds like you're saying, let's not forget that that has to happen before we can become part of this new creation. Yes, and I think, and I think we have a difference here because I do think it's, but I think it's part of the beautiful, covenantal story. I think God does demand perfect obedience that, of course, I think this can be caricatured and taken under context. I think we fail. I think Jesus dies in our place. Now, so maybe Tom thinks I'm one of those people who badly distort the story. I just think that's so important to the biblical story. And I'm part of communities and churches where people have been transformed by that truth. They don't respond by saying, well, oh good, I'm going to happen. I have nothing to do here and I'm just waiting to be transported. It transforms their lives so they live in new and powerful ways. So yes, I think there are caricatures out there, but I also see communities that are being transformed by this. And I want to proclaim that good news. I think Tom does, too. Yeah, absolutely. And I wouldn't gain say any of what Tom Trinus just said, though I do think the starting point of God demanding perfect obedience, this is what I call moralizing our anthropology. Our view of humanity becomes then a matter of morals. Now morals are enormously important. I fight long battles about moral behavior in the church and outside it. But I think by saying God demands perfect obedience is actually getting us off on the wrong foot. I think God creates a world in which humans are God's partners, God's image bearers. And then because they're called big God's image bearers, therefore, of course, obedience is what is required because disobedience means you're not reflecting God's image, but it's that way around. And then it's very interesting. As I say, I'd like to know Tom, your view of Revelation 5, where it says that worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive honour and glory because by his blood he ran some humans for God and made them a kingdom and priests to our God. How do you understand that? And do you see that as central or do you see that as secondary? Well, I think it's fundamental. I agree that we're called to be kingdoms, a kingdom and priests and the mediate God's blessing to the world. And that in the new creation will rule with Christ and do all kinds of interesting things, which most things we don't know right now. I want to step back and say, I think you formulated better what I'm saying about what it means to obey. It's in a whole context. I'm simply saying it's still an atom that you've removed from the garden for one transgression because as you rightly point out in your book, morality is always tied to idolatry. So I absolutely don't say amen to that. I just want to tie that with morality though. The two are inseparable. I agree. The idolatry is the root. Immorality is the root. Yeah, I think we're agreed on that which is good because by no means everybody has seen it like that. But does this mean that you are prepared to say that the idea of God winning the victory over the powers of the world, the dark powers of the world, which of course is there in the early fathers as well? Is that for you a foundational truth or is it a secondary truth following on from penal substitution? Yeah, I would say that I think penal substitution is the anchor by which justice victor is accomplished. Yeah, perhaps we disagree there. Well, I think the victory over the powers is it's a fundamental teaching, but I think it's rooted in penal substitute. Yeah, it may just be our different metaphors. I'm not sure I would say rooted. I'd say it's operative through. But let me take you back because there's a fascinating question which I've tried to wrestle with in this book and I'd love to know your view on it, which is the relation between Passover and the way that the Jewish Festival of Passover comes through into the New Testament and the day of atonement and the way that the day of atonement, which isn't a festival, it's a fast, comes through into the New Testament. Because would you agree with me that in the Gospels it looks as though, and for quite a bit of Paul and Revelation, it looks as though Passover is the main interpretative grid as it were through which Jesus himself decides, this is how I want people to see the death that I have to die. It's going to be the ultimate Passover moment because this is my point. If that is so, then isn't it interesting that Passover is not about dealing with sin when the Israelites are rescued from Egypt, they weren't enslaved because of their sin and there's nothing in Passover to say that what God does in rescuing them through Passover and through the Red Sea and so on is a forgiveness of sin. And so what I think we see in the New Testament is a combination of Passover and day of atonement. But if Passover is primary, then that is the victory over the powers and the rescue of those who are enslaved, rather than the primary thing being, some kind of day of atonement. I'd love to know your view on how those Jewish festivals are coming through. Let's hear from Tom Schreiner on that again. And then I've got a question I'd love to throw in from a listener as well on this. But go ahead Tom Schreiner. Okay. Yeah, I'm not sure that I would play them off against each other and honestly Tom, I have to do more work on this. But I think in Passover there, it isn't just liberating liberation. I think there is a substitutionary message implicit in the Passover as well. At least I interpret John the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. I think that's going back to Passover. I think John is interpreting that. Yes, it's liberation, but also a substitution. So even if you're right, the Passover is fundamental. I don't think that erases the substitutionary thing. No, in other words, I think they're joined together even in Passover. Yeah, that's very interesting because I'm not aware of any pre-Christian interpretation of Passover, which sees it as having anything to do with. dealing with sin until you get the idea in the second temple period, that we need a new exodus because Israel is still in a bad place, whether you call it exile or whatever. So we need a new exodus, we need a new Passover, but then I think because they realize from Daniel 7 and from Jeremiah and so on that the long exile that they've been suffering is itself the result of sin in a way that the slavery in Egypt wasn't. Then and only then you have a matrix in which you can understand fusing Passover with Atonement and I agree with John. Can I ask this question just quickly because it ties into this. This was Mike Ranieri in Toronto and I saved this from last week's show where we had lots of listen to questions. But he says of the seven Atonement theories, Penal substitution seems to be the most maligned. But none of the other theories adequately handle substitution and propiciation, both of which are biblical. An Atonement theology needs to explain the reason behind the Old Testament sacrifices which are clearly prophetic types to Christ's sacrificial anti-type. Without this illusion, the biblical lamb identification with Christ is meaningless. It was God who set up the sacrificial system. What does it mean that Jesus was made sin? Only Penal substitution it seems to me is able not only to encompass many of the other theories and I think that's what Tom Shrine has been saying. But also cover those very important Old Testament references. So Mike is saying for him, Penal substitution is right there in the sacrificial system in the way it's presented in the Old Testament. And so we should see that as being what Paul and the Gospels mean when they talk about Christ as a sacrifice for our sins and so on. I mean, I'll let Tom Shrine first of all comment and then Tom, right? Well, I'm sure Tom right wants to say something about this because I'm in fundamental agreement and that's another place I think, Tom and I differed. I view placing the hand on the animal, the death of the animal, the blood in the Old Testament sacrifices as signifying death, not the release of life, signifying death. So I think the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were substitutionary and atoning. Do you do you do you take a different view to that? Yes, I do because the more I have puzzled away about the meaning of sacrifice in the first century and so on, the more and the more I've read from both Christian and Jewish writers on this subject, the more it really does seem to my surprise because years ago I would have said exactly what Tom Shrine just said. But now I really want to say no, it looks as though in the Old Testament itself in Leviticus numbers and so on. The sacrifices are not killed as a vicarious punishment for the sins of the person who is identifying with them. That's not how sacrifices worked in the Levitical system and it's not how they were understood by the rabbis and so on. The only animal that has sins confessed over its head is the scapegoat on the day of atonement and the scapegoat is precisely the one animal that isn't then offered in sacrifice but is driven off into the wilderness. Because if it's got the sins of the people upon it, it can no longer be a pure animal and the sacrifices had to be pure and there's all sorts of things going on here which are very puzzling to us because I've never killed a sheep or an ox or anything. I have no kind of instinctive feel for what a worshiper might be thinking and when I've asked experts in early Judaism, what did people think they were doing when they brought the animals? You get a very wide variety of answers and so it's not an easy thing but and I think we must be very careful less to just assume that any sacrificial references in the New Testament mean penal substitution because there's a huge pushback against that from both Christian and Jewish scholars who say that's not how sacrifices work. We have to remind ourselves apart from anything else that the animals in a Jewish sacrifice were not killed on the altar. They were killed somewhere else and the killing was not the religious act as it were. The offering of the blood on the altar is the crucial thing and that then has the function of purifying because what again what we find so difficult is to think back into a temple culture which we don't have where the temple is the space where God is. People are supposed to get together but this is a very dangerous thing to do because of who we are. So the blood is a purificatory thing rather than the death being a propitiature. Do you stand by Tom Shriner though the idea that there is implicit in the sacrificial system a form of penal substitution as far as you can see? Yes, I do. I think the blood signifies death. We'd have to look at the text but Old Testament scholars of course themselves dispute this. But many see it as referring also to substitutionary death and I think that's the more convincing reading of the story. We're going to have to go to another quick break and we'll just start to wrap up our conversation. It's been so interesting. I've been just enjoying hearing you both go back and forth on this and I'm sure many people listening are enjoying that as well. Just a reminder that we're talking about the atonement on today's show here on unbelievable with me Justin Braily and great to have Tom Wright in studio his new book The Day the Revolution began reconsidering the meaning of Jesus' crucifixion is available now. So why not go out and get a copy if you're interested in looking into the theology of this. Tom Shriner, New Testament scholar at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary also joining us on the line to discuss some of Tom's ideas and we'll be back for the final part of today's show in just a moment's time. Is Donald the Trump card or the Joker in the pack in the latest edition of Premier Christianity magazine we examine the US election that's turning politics upside down and how evangelicals will play their cards. Tony Campolo talks about why he changed his mind on gay marriage. Mike Pillavacci teaches you how to be naturally supernatural and when the prodigals don't come home what to do when your kids have walked away from God. All that plus much much more request a free sample copy of Premier Christianity dot com slash free sample. Welcome back to the third part of today's unbelievable with me Justin Braily brought to you as part of Faith Explored every week here on Premier Christian Radio and Faith Explored brought to in association with Premier Christianity magazine if you'd like to get hold of a free sample copy if you're in the UK then do go online and ask for one. Premier Christianity dot com slash free sample it's a magazine I'm very proud of I am the editor of it and I can highly recommend it if you're interested in subscribing to it possibly another great gift to give to someone in the run up to Christmas but lots of great articles and of course our November edition focused on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton well of course the outcome of that has now been decided but we will hear some of your feedback to a recent show where we asked should Christians vote for Donald Trump. And I'll give you some of my reflections on that as well of course just a brief note to say that unfortunately the can we agree to disagree event Christians and humanists in conversation has had to be cancelled. It was due to be held on Monday the 14th of November in the evening here in London unfortunately is not able to go ahead for various reasons which is a great shame. I was looking forward to that and you would have heard it on the program as well but I'm afraid you won't know it's not happening apologies for those who had book tickets I believe that's all being refunded. However there is in the meantime a unbelievable Christians and skeptics discussion group event that's going to be happening that evening they were planning on bringing a little group along to it well they've decided to go ahead and do a similar discussion of their own. So if you want to find out more information about that happening in London at a cafe on Monday the 14th in the evening and you were thinking about getting along to the original event maybe consider going along to that it'll be very worthwhile they're going to do a similar kind of panel discussion on it. I won't be involved myself but you can certainly hear those who are just look up the details on the meetup.com website for unbelievable Christian and skeptic discussion group and you should find out all about it there. Later on today former gangster john Lawson will be speaking to Sam hails about how he became a Christian the most extraordinary story between four and five on the profile today and next week on the program Luke Johnson says we need to radically rethink scripture because of what we know about biology and evolution he's my guest and he's going to be in conversation with fuzz runner of reasons to believe he's a biologist and they're going to be specifically looking at some of the examples of what Luke believes. Are examples of evolution that clearly contradict any idea of design or creation involved so if you're interested in those kind of issues come back for that debate at the same time next week here on the show let's get back into the final part of today's discussion. You're listening to unbelievable on premier Christian radio. We've been asking what happened on the cross with Tom right and Tom Schreiner discussing the atonement today Tom right new book the day the revolution began reconsidering the meaning of Jesus's crucifixion I'm sure will as his books always do create a lot of discussion insight and also some controversy. Schreiner New Testament scholar at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has been pressing Tom on some of his views on penal atonement salvation eschatology and so on as ever if you want to get in touch about anything you've heard on the program today do email in unbelievable at premier dot all dot UK. So as we conclude this topic again I'd like to launch a very simple question at both of you which again came in. via text, via Twitter, I should say, last week, and this was the one from, and if I just find it here, Brian Eccleswell, who simply asked Christ died for our sins, but what does for mean? And I think this sort of gets at the heart of a lot of what we've been talking about. We so often use that phrase as Christians, Christ died for my sins. But then, if someone asks us, well, what exactly do you mean by that? We often get a little bit, it's a bit hard to explain, and I'm not quite sure I can give you the mechanics or the sort of the way in which this operates and so on. And obviously you've got lots of different theories of atonement, what it means for Christ. So I suppose having done a lot of theological talk in the past, you know, 45 minutes or so, if someone simply asked you that Tom, maybe they weren't Tom Schreiner, they were just a regular Joe off the street. What would you say to them? What does it mean Tom Wright? Christ died for my sins. Before I answer it, let me just say often when I do lectures and so on, somebody will say, I have a very simple question. And then, and actually I had an email from my six-year-old grandson yesterday who said, grandfather, I have two questions. When was God born and what do demons look like? And these are great questions from a six-year-old. And oh my goodness, talk about putting you on the spot. And the trouble is that questions can often sound very simple. But then in order to answer anything so simple, you have to take several steps back and take a run at it. It's very interesting that when Paul, Saul of classes, Paul, the Apostle says, the Messiah died for our sins. Let's have Messiah, by the way, it's really important. He says, in accordance with the scriptures. And so if you want to know what for our sins mean, Paul says, well, it's in accordance with the scriptures. And people, well, what does that mean? Does that mean there are four or five proof texts like us, R53 or Psalm 22 or something that you can go back to? And I say, well, those are the tip of the iceberg. But actually the scriptures is an entirety of the way in which the one loving God is rescuing his world and rescuing us as the pilot project for his rescue of the whole world. And that the problem with that is that we have all done our own thing, worshiped idols, so that our humanness has wrecked itself, which is what we call sin in a thousand different ways. And that this has produced this great flood, this mass of wickedness of evil forces in the world, and that the story in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is the story not only of how Israel's story came to its climax, not only the story of how the loving God stepped into human history and did this himself, but also the story of how human wickedness rose to its height. As you can see in Herod and Pilate and all the horrible things that are going on in the gospels, and all that came to a head and the Messiah, Israel's representative who was the embodiment of the living God, died under the weight of that accumulated wickedness in order to destroy its power and launch God's new creation in which we now are invited by faith to take part. So now, how long did that take? Well, exactly. But I mean, without saying some sort of story like that, it can very easily collapse into a pagan thing which is to say, oh, God was very angry with people. So he was determined to punch somebody on the nose, happen to be his own innocent son, so that's alright, isn't it? And of course, no saint theologian would say that, but that's what a lot of people have heard. And you have to tell the whole story in order not to slide down into that. Where would you go with that very simple on the surface at least, question, Tom Schreiner? A Christ died for our sins. What does the fall mean? Well, the first thing I'd want to say is I think Tom's sketching into the story in the book in his writings, it's enormously helpful. He does help us not read the account abstractly. So I celebrate that. And so I would just want to add, I don't think I'm adding something Tom didn't say. I'd want to add that I think, most simply, if you are very concise, and I think Simon Gathropole has defended this recently. In fact, his book is called Defending Substitution. What does that phrase mean? Yes, it means Christ died for us. Tom's exactly right. You have to set it in a biblical context. We have to read it in light of the whole story. It isn't the whole, but of course, it's a vital part of the story. And so I want to celebrate that Christ died in our place. He did absorb the punishment, the wrath of God for our sake, and our salvation. I mean, if someone was coming to you then, Tom has said, what does it mean to say Christ died for me? Christ died for me? And why is it important that I accept that? You know, you know, this is, I think, often the question that many people who like church, and they like being part of a Christian community, but they're not sure about exactly who Christ was, who he claimed to be, and whether they need to do something to become part of this community. Well, it depends on me and by do. I mean, Jesus says repent and believe in the good news. And again, we have made that mean various things which both do and don't correspond to what Jesus meant. For Paul in Romans 10, it's very clear. If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him to the dead, you will be saved. But of course, that's only a beginning. That's the kind of launching pad. And I think part of the problem is that there has been an assumption without necessarily being chased through an assumption in much broadly evangelical and charismatic circles of some kind of what I would call a low grade substitution, which does play back sadly into this works idea that the whole of creation is about God setting up this moral system. And we have to jump the bar and then we'll go to heaven. Unfortunately, we knocked it off, so we're not going to heaven. And then fortunately for us, just when God was about to punish us, he found an innocent victim called Jesus instead. That's how people have seen it. And that then generates the wrong view of God, which is not Isaiah's view of God, not Paul's or John's or Jesus's own view of God. I think one of the problems in that sense on right is that the problem is that maybe it's easier to grasp that simple page. It is. And it's easier to do a three point sort of sin as prayer on the back of it. It's easier to do it because it comes naturally to humans as you'll see if you look at the pagan literature, which is full of ancient pagan liches, full of angry gods punishing innocent victims so that people can go ahead with a military operation or whatever it is. That's where the human mind naturally lapses back into. And that's quite a shock, actually. And it seems to me that's the problem that we have been always in danger of paganizing our view of how we get saved. And that's what this book is trying to ward off. Well, thank you for joining me to talk about the book today on the programme. And thank you also, Tom Schreiner. Can we expect a review of Tom's book from your pen at any point soon? Well, I'm not really planning on that. I enjoyed reading the book and perhaps I'll write a review, but it's not one of my current projects. Okay. Well, I appreciate you making the time to come on this programme to engage with Tom. Thanks for having me. And my thanks, Tom too. It's very, very good to talk to you. And I hope we'll bump into each other when we meet at SBL in a few months' time, a couple of months' time. I do as well. Yeah, okay, bless you. Thank you. And say hello to my friends, Scott Heathlin. I will indeed. Absolutely. All right, thank you both, gentlemen. Both Tom's today for being with me on the programme. Unbelievable with Justin Briarly. Look forward to hearing what you had to say about today's discussion and a significant one and a significant piece of work from Tom Wright in this latest book. So do email him, [email protected]. As ever, the ways to get in touch via social media are the Twitter account @unbelieveablejb to follow me there. Facebook.com/unbelieveablejb is a like the Facebook page of this show and be updated regularly with various things, articles, videos and so on that are related to the program in some way or another. It's been a big week of course in politics over in the US and the ramifications will be felt all over the world. As Donald Trump won the presidency, I think a lot of people have drawn the connections of course between what happened here in the UK with the Brexit decision. Many people would never have dreamed six months ago, three months ago, maybe even on the election night that Donald Trump could become the US president but that is what has happened. I simply tweeted at the time, "Lord have mercy." And I think that's an appropriate thing to tweet whichever candidate had won. As a Christian, I believe we should ask God for mercy because our politicians don't have the answers in the end. I do believe the solutions lie beyond the grasp of politics. We can do what we can but we have to have a change of heart ultimately. But this is where we are. And you're welcome to feed your thoughts to me whichever side of the pond you happen to be listening to today's program on. I can see huge issues obviously for many people now that Trump has won. I do however think and I hope that America can get behind their new president and work for healing. It has created huge rifts, huge divisions, the whole campaign. And obviously many people will never be reconciled to the idea that Donald Trump is a suitable person to lead the largest democracy in the world. But that is what is happening as far as we know and I guess my view would be, "Can hope that Donald Trump does surprise people with his abilities. That remains to be seen. For the moment, my prayers are certainly with America, whatever the future may hold. And we'll be hearing some of your thoughts on the back of the debate we held on unbelievable, on whether Christians should vote for Donald Trump as well. Joshua Wu got in touch on Facebook, saying, "I'm a Christian from Malaysia. Just want to tell you how much I've been blessed by the debates that have been organized on the unbelievable show. May the Lord continue to prosper your ministry. May God's blessings be upon you." Lovely to read that. Joshua, thank you very much. A Brian Rodin also got in touch on Facebook to say, "I've recently started listening to the podcast after another podcast played and discussed sections of your airman-borkham debate from spring. Apart from the excellent content, I'm encouraged by the existence of the show and its wide listenership. Here in the States, we often hear reports that sound like the church in Europe is on its last legs, only barely surviving. But your programme is evidence that the wind of the spirit is still blowing in the lungs of British Christianity. Keep up the great work and God bless." Well, all I can say is amen. Brian, thank you. Ray Penover on Facebook said of the discussion last week, "Not anti-right answering your questions that you sent in in a Ask anti-right anything edition of the show. I challenge anyone to listen to this broadcast and not become excited about New Testament studies." Okay, maybe you have to be a little bit of a geek already, but not too much. You should know that anti-right is one of the premier New Testament scholars in the world. He speaks with clarity and power on a variety of subjects in this Q&A. Really glad you enjoyed it, Ray. Thanks for spreading the word on Facebook. It always helps when people share the latest edition of the show. Take the website edition of the programme and paste it up on their Facebook. So many people get introduced to the show that way or when people talk about it on their podcasts and other ways. Always good to do that. Thank you and we'll get some responses of course to today's show next week on the programme. I'm sure lots of people will want to have a say on what Tom had to say about atonement today and indeed the issue of inerrancy last week, which is where some of the emails have come in. But we're going to leave those for the moment. Let's talk about the Trump versus Hillary debate that we had a few weeks ago. Of course, it's all decided now to some extent this is academic, but it was just interesting to see what a lot of people had to say about that when John's mere act came in to defend Christians who wanted to vote for Trump and Christina Reese was I guess opposing the view that Christians should vote for Donald Trump. Michael asks, are you going to do a show on should Christians vote for Hillary Clinton? Well, obviously not now Michael, but I guess at the time you were asking because that would seem fair. I don't think that was so much of an issue that I think Donald Trump represented it a rather unique kind of dilemma for evangelicals, particularly in the U.S. and that was why we focused primarily on him. And said in the discussion, your male guest John's mere act said that Winston Churchill was an agnostic. However, that's not true. A recent book God and Churchill, co-authored by Churchill Great grandson Jonathan Sandi, states that despite his early years as an agnostic Churchill came to have a strong personal faith in God and Jesus and included God and Bible quotations in his great wartime speeches. Thanks for alerting me to that. And Joe says, I've greatly appreciated unbelievable measured dialogue approach to some of the most difficult subjects. Alas, I deleted this last episode within the opening introductions when the spokesman for the Trump campaign began with the whole Trump audio sexual misconduct Bill Clinton did the same thing discourse. I can only hope that the conversation didn't just echo the campaign's talking points and actually got down to the Christian moral conversations related to the campaigns and candidates. I guess I'll never know because I couldn't stomach more of the same blather. Anyway, thank you very much for getting a touch, Joe. Avril says, actions speak louder than words. So horrified to hear about those who are endorsing Trump. Sounds like the epitome of evil. Everything Christ warns us to reject. Difficult to even pray for him except to pray he doesn't reach the White House. Hillary Clinton will get my vote why because any woman who holds her marriage together forgives her husband and not only survives but goes on to become a force for good. Don't tell me her Christian faith and played no part in that. Obviously, lots of people disagreed with you on that. Avril, you know, the millions of Americans for starters who voted for Trump and against Hillary effectively. Rob says, I've been an unbelievable listener for about six months now from South Dakota. I've been thoroughly impressed with the quality and caliber of guests. However, the Trump debate was a let down. As an evangelical who really doesn't know what to do in the election, I was hoping your guests will present their sides well, but it seemed as though they spent most of the program talking past one another. One said Trump's character was reprehensible. The other said it was irrelevant and that issue never really got resolved. It was funny how Zmirak pretended that character was irrelevant given Trump's incredible unreliability. Why should we trust that his 180 degree turn from his former political stance is genuine. Given his ration, honestly childish reactions, why should we think he would unite the country instead of divided? Why do we think he'd have any success in foreign policy? I was also disappointed in Reese's stance, ignoring Clinton's scandalous past, willingness to tell blatant lies, her staff as scolding of Catholics and her stance on abortion. I'm not a staunch conservative but she doesn't really represent Christian ideals. Perhaps the worst part of the whole thing is they both ignored any third party option as indeed did most people in the US as it emerged. Rob, thanks for getting in touch. Dave wanted to get, say obviously, grew them by the time we'd recorded that, or that that edition was aired, had reconsidered his retraction of Trump and was endorsing the Republican platform. But wanted to say Christina was wrong on so many issues, her assessment that to be honest it was hard to listen to her. Zmirak is brilliant and a true star in a Catholic universe so often confused today. Well of course it turned out that the Catholic vote did have a significant swing towards the Republican platform in the end, and of course as far as we can see a lot of evangelical Christians did turn out to vote for Trump as well. Rightly or wrongly as that may be, Reverend Kate Mulbier says as a Christian living in America I really appreciated the episode I was raised in a politically divided household, became a Republican as a teenager. I've moved left over the last 10 years, primarily on economic and immigration policies. Now consider myself a left-leaning moderate with a soft spot for Republicans. I'm in the never-Trump camp, however I'm passionately pro-life in a holistic way, not just where the unborn are concerned, and I'm struggling with whether or not I can vote for Hillary Clinton. Even though I'm more liberal than conservative, I struggled to support a candidate who is an advocate for late-term abortions. That being said Rachel Held Evans wrote a blog which explained how democratic policies actually reduce the overall number of abortions. I've followed up on that research and she's right. It's a real ethical dilemma, and Jeff in Canada says it's been a while since I commented on the show. I've been doing some personal theological studies that have kept me busy, but following the US elections very closely I do feel the real predicament that evangelical voters face with the choice of Trump and Clinton. As a Christian I'm appalled and agree with the argument that Mr. Trump is unfit and unstable to be the president of the world's most powerful nation. I understand the concerns about the Supreme Court and the effects that may result, but I feel like most of these things are built into what Scripture prophecies say will happen. The bigger question is one of your guest supporters of Hillary raised is the tremendous support and blind eyed loyalty shown, despite all the unacceptable things Mr. Trump says all affirmed by his own words. This points to a more fundamental reality. Either they're blinded to these moral flaws or don't care either is dangerous. And there was also one from Kenneth Vaughn who wanted to say that it's not as simple as as evangelicals turning out to vote for Trump. He says I'm currently working on my doctorate focusing on the sociology of religion, and I believe Tony Campola on the program vastly overstated the evangelicals for Trump. Data indicated that evangelicals were the most skeptical of Trump among all the GOP voters. A study from Pew Research showed Trump failing to even win a plurality of evangelical voters and an analysis of data published in first things estimated that during the primary elections up to 80 to 90 percent of evangelicals supported a candidate other than Trump. After the Democratic and Republican conventions Trump did consolidate evangelical support for some time, though much of this was likely in opposition to Clinton. However, some of the most recent data shows Trump has made modern GOP history by essentially losing the evangelical vote. Now I haven't looked into Kenneth what it actually looks like when it comes to the people who actually turned up and voted. Perhaps you want to send a follow-up email on that as well. You go on to make two further points here. I count myself among evangelicals who do not support Trump. However, I cannot support Clinton either and disagree with the case for her made by Reese. I don't believe that Clinton represents a policy of compassion. I take the consistent ethic of life approach, also known as being pro-life from womb to tomb. I'm against abortion, war, and the death penalty. Clinton, on the other hand, has been pro-abortion to an extent considered fringe even by secular progressive European standards. She is supporting nearly every act of US military aggression in her public career, plus at least one campaign we didn't follow through on. This has led to nations being broken, destabilized the expansion of a drone program that reportedly kills a shockingly high number of unintended targets, countless lives being ended or ruined. She's also a supporter of the death penalty. The fact that she supports a handful of generous domestic social policies cannot offset the number of unborn and civilian deaths her policies have been and continue to be responsible for. And thirdly, a quick note when Zmirak brought up the women who vacues Bill Clinton of sexual assault and Hillary Clinton's assistance in shutting these women down, Reese responded that Bill Clinton isn't running for office. This is a common response, but I believe it's a dodged Zmirak and others are clearly highlighting the way Hillary Clinton has treated women who are alleging sexual assault. Thank you very much, Kenneth, and lots more. Really, really for Maulbag, responding to that show. As I say, somewhat academic now, the decision has been made. It's been trusted to hear how you've responded to that. yourself if you're an unbelievable listener. I know these things are massively, massively important. Thank you very much for being with me on today's program. Look forward to you being with me for the next one as well, our 501st podcast episode. If you want to listen again online, premiercrisianradio.com/unbelieverball. Let me tell you what's coming up next week. Luke Johnson has published a book saying we need to radically rethink scripture and doctrine in light of what we now know about biology and evolution. He's been on a real journey from being a fundamentalist Christian to, well frankly, rethinking everything. He's going to be talking about that journey and he's going to be discussing whether we can really see design and purpose in nature and biology. Phas Rana of Reasons to Believe will be in conversation with him about that on the show next week. Hope you can come back as well in the meantime. Have a good week.