Tom Wright (2:55)

People have often asked me, as you look around your library, what will your favorite book be? I want to go in two different directions. One would be Winnie the Pooh, of course, having been brought up on the Pooh stories and having read them to my children and grandchildren, they are part of the background fabric of my life and they're beautiful. They're amazingly written at a totally different level. As I look around my library, one of my favorite books, which I love pulling off the shelf, is the Oxford Classical Dictionary, where the new edition, anything you want to know about the ancient classical world of Greece and Rome. It's all there, well written up with good bibliographies. And I always have the sense of, oh good, I'm going to learn something more about this bit and that bit and the other. It all kind of joins up.

Mike Bird (3:41)

But.

Tom Wright (3:42)

But having been a classicist on and off all my life, it's one of my ultimate go to books. And I just always get a good sense when I pull it off the shelf. So that's for book. What was the next one?

Mike Bird (3:52)

Favorite movie.

Tom Wright (3:53)

Not a great movie buff as I look back over movie going two which stand out from the 1980s. Actually, one is Chariots of Fire for kind of obvious reasons, but it was a great movie. It won the Oscar in I think 1981 or possibly 82 sometime around then. And then another one from a similar period was Amadeus, which was a film version of the stage play Amadeus. I've now seen the stage play twice. I've seen the movie three or four times, and I just think an extraordinary piece of work bringing together a very serious take on the music with an extraordinarily powerful and potent and both very funny and very sad picture of Mozart's life. So as I look back, I mean, as I say, I'm not a great movie goer, but those are the two that I would go for.

Mike Bird (4:45)

And favorite Bible verse and favorite type of tea.

Tom Wright (4:50)

Favorite Bible verse is always a teaser. I go back again and again to 2 Corinthians 5, 21, and I'm just going to look it up in my own translation so that I'm quoting the right version because it's often misunderstood. The Messiah did not know sin, but. But God made him to be sin on our behalf, so that in him, and here's the key, we might embody God's faithfulness to the covenant. I've argued in various places as to why that's the right interpretation of that verse, which is not the way most people have traditionally taken It. But the idea of embodying God's faithfulness is one which I think is absolutely central to our Christian vocation. And I always kind of, when I come through that verse, I think, yes, this is what we are called to do.

Mike Bird (5:41)

And your favorite tea, Tom,

Tom Wright (5:45)

that there's a company which makes or produces tea here in the UK called Yorkshire Tea and it's good old fashioned, bog standard. In fact, I've got a mug of it right here. I have flirted with all sorts of other fancy teas, jasmine tea and lemon and honey tea and goodness knows what. And for special occasions, those are nice. But I just come back to the, to the good old fashioned. My grandfather used to call it, some people call it builder's tea. My grandfather used to call it Sergeant Major's tea because it ought to be made so strong that you can stand the spoon to attention in the, in the mug of tea. So there we are. Cheers.

Mike Bird (6:29)

There we go. Well, I love Yorkshire, the place and the tea. Well, anyway, Tom, we've got some great questions this week. Can you lose your salvation preaching hell and hyper Calvinism? So first up, our questions from Stephanie Lever in Orlando. And this is about the possibility of losing your salvation. Stephanie writes. Hello, Mike and Tom, thank you so much for all you do. Your works and podcasts have inspired me to study theology formally, which has been such a blessing. Oh, that is great news, Stephanie. Glad we can, we can do that. Here is my question. What are your thoughts on the once saved, always saved theology? The more I read God's Word, the more I think this belief is incorrect according to the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. I'll appreciate your wisdom on this. Thanks again for all you do. Shalom. Well, Tom, we've got a clear admirer, a clear friend and Stephanie who's benefiting from what we do. But yeah, I mean, can anyone, any real serious theology be summed up in a pity saying, you know, once saved, always saved. I mean, is there, is there a more complex way of putting this? I mean, I've got my own answer, my own little bumper sticker phrase which I'll share with you at the end. But before I do that, I want people want to hear from you. Tom, what do you think about once saved, always saved theology?

Tom Wright (7:55)

Yeah, I think part of the problem comes in the word saved itself, that when people use the word saved as a synonym for converted or having some kind of a fresh experience of the love of God in Christ, then I think that says too much too quickly because there are many people who have intimations of the presence of Jesus and sometimes will say, oh, I think I've just been converted. And then three weeks later or three months later or three years later, there's absolutely no sign that anything has happened. And it was just an odd spas, cosmodic thing that happened. But if they're told at the time, ah, you met Jesus there, so you've been saved. So now, once saved, always saved, so whatever happens, whatever you do, you're going to have an end of conversation then. I think that kind of trivializes the very rich and demanding New Testament picture. And I think there are two things which have to be held together. There is the argument in. In Romans, particularly those, he justified them. He also glorified Romans 8:30. And that whole argument, particularly the central section of Romans 5 through 8, is that if we are justified by faith, we have peace with God and we celebrate the hope of the glory of God. And we could talk about what that means, but it's basically that you look back and you say, jesus died for me. The Holy Spirit has come to dwell in me. I am safe. I belong to God. And now where are the challenges? Because they'll be huge and they're coming after you. And Romans 6 and 7 and 8 have got plenty of things to challenge us, but that's the kind of sheet anchor, and it's very basic to one whole strand, both of Christian experience and of scriptural teaching at the same time. You want First Corinthians, and 1 Corinthians sits right beside Romans in the New Testament. I think that Romans is written shortly after 1 Corinthians, but not that long. And so I don't want to say that Paul has changed his mind or is contradicting himself, but in 1 Corinthians 10, he is warning people who have come into the church who have said a prayer of faith, who have been baptized, who are regular attenders at the Lord's Supper, eating and drinking the bread and the wine. And to them, Paul says, watch out. Because if you look at the paradigm story, which is the exodus from Egypt, there were lots of people who came out of Egypt with Moses, Moses, they came through the river. That's like baptism. They ate the food and drank the drink like the Lord's Supper. But with many of them, God was not pleased. They didn't hang in there. They didn't stay upright. And the crucial verse Then is verse 12 of 1 Corinthians 10. Anyone who reckons their standing upright should watch out in case they fall over and so I remember, I think C.S. lewis says somewhere, I can't say where, that when we're looking at our Christian brothers and sisters, we ought to err on the side of generosity, that we think that they're probably doing all right and we should pray for them and encourage them and support them and reassure them if they're feeling their faith is a bit wobbly. But when it comes to ourselves, we ought to say that verse. Let anyone who thinks he's standing upright watch out lest he fall over. So for Paul, there is a genuine danger of falling over. Now, I know that within Reformed, some people have tried to systematize that and say that, well, somebody who then renounces the faith, somebody who departs from it, somebody whose life then doesn't match up and they never repent of the wicked things they then do, that actually they were never properly saved in the first place, that the faith that they had was not really genuine. And some of the old puritans in the 17th century used to draw kind of roadmaps or almost like a snakes and ladders board, where, yes, it may look as if you got faith, faith that there is this thing called false faith or self deception, so that you could tread on the snake and go heading off in that direction, whereas the true faithful, the ones whose faith was genuine, will go on and progress. But of course the issue is how can you tell in the present whether your faith is genuine or not? And the answer is, are you persevering? Are you actually exhibiting the signs of that living, lively faith? And that's when those warnings come home to us. And actually they're in Romans as well, because Romans is very clear in Romans chapter 8. And when I was working on the book on that into the heart of Romans, I remember being struck by that afresh. Paul says, if you live accordance with the flesh, you will die. But if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. And he's again tracking with the Exodus narrative there about following through and being faithful, etc. But it's very strong that just when he's talking about assurance and there is no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Jesus, he said, well, one of the signs that you're in Messiah Jesus is that you're putting to death the deeds of the body. And sadly, the once saved, always saved teaching historically has regularly gone with a kind of de emphasis on the Christian moral life and the Christian ethical challenge. So that if you're too worried about that, oh, you're trying to Justify yourself by works. No, that's not the case. And that faith and works way of looking at it really isn't helpful in terms of understanding what Paul is saying. I know that's not what we were all taught when we were young, but that's certainly how I've come to see it now. So, yes, there is such a thing as the genuine experience of the love of God in Christ which really does transform us. And we really are given the Holy Spirit. And I believe that when that happens, we will persevere. But the question is, can we fool ourselves? Do we think we're standing up, when in fact we may not be? And the signs of that may be all too apparent? And so I think we are commanded by the New Testament to oscillate between the two. It's the same in the letter to the Hebrews, which is often quoted in this context, of course, where the writer says, watch out, this could happen to you. And then he immediately says, nevertheless, in your case, brothers, brothers and sisters, I feel assured of better things. And so we kind of come round the corner, but the warnings are there and they matter. So, Mike, I'll be intrigued to know where you would come out on all this. Yeah.

Mike Bird (14:58)

I once had some students in Scotland and I asked them to come up with an alternative to once saved, always saved. And I told them to go to Philippians 2:13, you know, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, because God is the one who works in you to will and work out his good pleasure. I said, reflect on that verse and come up with an alternative amphorism or an alternative little bumper sticker. And they. And what the group came up with was actually pretty awesome. They said, rather than once saved, always saved, they said, work out what God has worked in.

Tom Wright (15:36)

Wow.

Mike Bird (15:37)

Which I think, you know, rather than one save always saved, I would go for work out what God has worked in. That sounds more like. I think that's more true to Paul and the New Testament. But yeah, I mean, I've been doing some translation of Romans 6 recently in those. Those warning passages. And yeah, it's not the best place to be a Calvinist when you're into Romans 6. The. That perseverance of the saints. It can get a little shaky there. But. No, no, I think what you've said, Tom, is exactly right. You know,

Tom Wright (16:10)

what was the bumper's taker? Work out what God has worked in. Yeah, that's very good. I should remember that. And I think it was old FF Bruce, who was one of the great evangelical scholars of the generation or two before us. Before me, certainly. And he said that the corollary of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is the doctrine that it is the saints who persevere. In other words, don't assume that because you're part of the church now or you've got a life of faith now, therefore you are automatically going to persevere whatever you do. Rather, it's like the old philosopher saying, call no one happy till they're dead. You only really know who the saints are when they've done their persevering. Then you can really tell in retrospect.

Mike Bird (17:02)

Yeah, that's probably a good way to put it. Well, Tom, we're going to move from perseverance to perdition. We have a question from a friend in Birmingham on preaching hell, which is ironic because when I think about what hell would be like, I naturally think of Birmingham, Alabama, in summer.

Tom Wright (17:28)

I was in Birmingham, England, in winter a couple of days ago, and that was.

Mike Bird (17:31)

Well, maybe that's the same. Maybe that's the weeping and chattering of teeth. Could be like Birmingham. Okay, apologies to all our Birmingham listeners. I think. I think we've had a few Birmingham jokes on this program. Anyway, we've got a question from a friend in Birmingham, and this is about, you know, preaching hell. And he asks, how can the following two things be reconciled? First, preaching repeatedly about hell is unhelpful as a scare tactic, which is used to try to manipulate people into becoming Christians for the wrong reasons, you know, to avoid being sent to hell. And then secondly, Jesus is recorded as preaching or warning about hell and judgment in the gospels. Many times, perhaps as many as 60 or 70 times, are pastors and churches who regularly preach of hell and judgment, following the example of Jesus and are right in doing so. Growing up in one of these churches, I felt that the repeated preaching of the subject I received at a young and early age did more damage than good to my prospects of becoming a Christian. I think this is a really good question, because if you end up just, you know, throwing fire and brimstone and everyone saying turn or burn, you know, it makes God sound angry and wrathful and as if Jesus is trying to convince an angry God to chill out or something like that. Or Jesus saves us from what God wants to do to us. But on the other hand, Jesus did spend a lot of time talking about judgment and hell. And the apostle Paul and Peter and John, I mean, they mentioned this, too. So is there a proper way to preach hell without being off fire and Brimstone, because there are some churches where you would never hear about hell at all. Or else people sanitize it rather than say Hell. They talk about a Christless eternity, which you can understand is one way of putting it. But that's. Yeah, it's. That's a way of trying to neuter, I think, the, the danger and the peril that might be faced. Tom, what's the responsible way to teach? Preach about hell.

Tom Wright (19:47)

Yeah. Wow. We need to take several steps back. As is often the case with 20th century or 21st century Christianity. We've got ourselves into difficulties. And when you simply take some sermon or book or whatever and say, what's the response to that? The answer is you need to work back and see where that's coming from. Now, the big one is that when people hear the word hell, they basically conjure up a medieval fission, which was actually an ancient pagan vision of nasty little demons wanting to torment people in an afterlife. I mean, that goes back into ancient paganism. That was the reason why the philosophy called Epicureanism was invented in the first place, was a way of saying to people three centuries before Christ, don't worry, there's none of that demons tormenting you at all. When you die, you die and you just go into nothingness. So there's nothing to worry about, is there? You may feel a bit sad about that, but there's certainly nothing to be alarmed at. Now. Many people today in our world are actually Epicureans without realizing it. And so often when Christians say, no, no, no, there is a future life, then how are you going to describe that? And so we lapse back into the medieval picture, which is a repressedination of the ancient pagan vision. Quite a lot of bits and pieces of medieval theology was really bringing back into the Christian world stuff from ancient paganism, rather than thinking through the meaning of the gospel. So we need to demystify a lot of that image of hell, whether we've got it from actual reading of the medieval stuff, or whether we've got it from Milton's Paradise Lost with Satan in hell with his demons, or whether we've got it from. From other images that have become well known in the culture. I think, for instance, James Joyce's novel Portrait of the Artist as a Young man, which is a hugely important and powerful novel and includes quite early on, a school chapel setting with an old Catholic priest preaching about hell. And it's the most wonderful piece of rhetoric designed to send every schoolboy in the place scurrying off to the confession to confess their sins, to seek forgiveness, because if they were run over by a horse in the street, they don't want to be going there. Thank you very much. So that's how that stuff worked. And if you want to see how that stuff worked, that's a great place to go and look. And I want to say we need to get back behind all of that. I think when I look at the New Testament, there's one strand which we have to be very careful about, and that's when Jesus talks about the upcoming judgment on Jerusalem. Because in, say, a passage like Luke 13, it's clear when we read the whole passage that that is what Jesus is talking about. Indeed, a lot of Luke has Jesus warning that if Israel doesn't repent, then Jerusalem itself is going to be overthrown. And that's what Luke 13 is really all about. But the way that Jesus says that is that when he is told about some Galileans who have been in the temple and Pilate had kill them so that their blood was mingling with the sacrificial blood of the temple, and Jesus says, do you suppose that they were greater sinners than all other Galileans? He says, no, let me tell you, unless you repent, you will all be destroyed in the same way. In the older translation, unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. And then he adds about 18 people who were killed when the tower of Siloam collapsed on top of them. Were they worse sinners than everyone else? Jesus says, no, but unless you repent, you will all be destroyed in the same way. And the point about that is that he's not talking about people frying in hell after they die. He's talking about people who are hearing his message and refusing to repent. And they will find that Roman soldiers on the one hand and falling masonry in Jerusalem on the other will finish them off. And there are many passages in the New Testament which have traditionally been read as predictions of hell, which are in fact predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem. And part of the point then is the idea of destruction is that something basically ceases to exist. And the word for that destruction, then, can often be interpreted in terms of the terror, the horror of it. Because we know in our bones that we humans are made for more than that. And I want to want to reflect on the human vocation. We are called to be genuine humans. And this is not that we are called to behave ourselves. And if we don't behave ourselves, we'll end up in hell. That's the trivial distortion of it. Rather, we are called in being human, to be God reflectors, to be image bearers, to reflect the wisdom and love and stewardship of God into the creation and to reflect the praises of creation back to God. Now if somebody says, I don't want to do that, I'm going to be the center of my world, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul, I'm going to do things my way and I will run my bit of the world to my own advantage. And I'm not going to try to reflect God's goodness into the world and or I'm going to seek all the praise for myself and I'm not going to transmit the praises of the world to God. I'm going to treat the world as I want to then. And if somebody says that, what they are saying is I don't want to be an image bearing human. And the question then is, will God the Creator say to the human beings he has created, never mind what you want, I'm going to make you okay anyway? Or will he say, well, that was your choice and you have made that choice now? For myself, it seems to me that the New Testament that firmly supports the latter view, that if you take a passage like Romans 2 or indeed many other passages, these are warnings that those who refuse God's call and invitation to become genuine humans will at the most end up as I hate to use the phrase, but ex humans, creatures that once were image bearers or potential image bearers but now do not have that capacity, whether they exist in any meaningful sense. I'm actually not sure if I think of C.S. lewis's attempt at that in his book the Great Divorce, Lewis picture of hell is people becoming more and more and more diminished, more and more tiny and irrelevant, and they are full of fury and hatred themselves. But in terms of God's new creation, they are next to nothing. It's almost as though they don't exist. I suspect that may be as good as we can get in terms of trying to understand what it might mean for somebody to say no to God. And I have to say there are many people who've lived through much of the 20th and now much of the 21st century who will look around at some of the radical evil and wickedness that has gone on and have said to themselves there has to be a hell. Because otherwise how could there be a God who could look on this and not be horrified and angry with the way that some people are behaving now, of course, when you criticize other people. There are three fingers pointing back at yourself and all that. So we are at once driven back to humility and say, lord have mercy on me, a sinner. But there are people who do seem, as we might say, hell bent on driving through the whole thing their way. And it's perfectly plausible, and the New Testament would support this, to say that God will say, okay, have it your way, but that might mean an infinite diminishment until they are next to nothing. I think that's where I end up. But Mike, I don't know that you and I have ever talked about this. Have we? Would you agree with what I just said?

Mike Bird (28:30)

No. Completely. Completely. You know, I think you've got to put the doctrine of hell in a bigger picture, which means at one level, dealing with the preaching of Jesus to Jerusalem and the, the imminent kind of judgment on the temple, but even that is a foreshadowing of the final judgment. So there's a multi level things going on. You've got your doctrine of humanity, what you think the cross achieved, and what real separation from God means. And you've got to remember a lot of the, the language of hell. I mean, you can't take it literally. You can't have everlasting fire and everlasting darkness. So, you know, you, you know, one's glowing a flame, everything's illuminated and then complete darkness. So these are different ways of trying to say something about the horror, the ugliness of choosing an eternity without God. But I think the way you've set it out, Tom, if people are looking for a way of preaching hell responsibly, faithfully, but also pastorally sensitive, where you're not telling people to turn or burn, I think the scheme you've set out is an ideal way to do that.

Tom Wright (29:39)

Well, bless you. Thank you. I mean, I have once or twice heard kind of careful, wise sermons on hell. I remember a long time ago John Stott preaching a sermon which I heard on tape, where it seemed to me he was not mincing his words, but not bullying people either. And I thought, that's a very fine balance, and no doubt we are all in danger of losing our balance. But it seems to me, and has seemed to me for a long time, that the easygoing universalism that many churches have slid into in reaction against that hellfire preaching is extremely damaging. You know, the Voltaire thing, Dieu pardonara se sans metier. God will pardon. That's his job, you know. So don't worry, it'll be all right. That has allowed many many people, including many, would be Christ to say it doesn't really matter, you know, how we behave, how we believe, what we say, the way we treat people, it's not not going to matter ultimately. And the answer is it probably does, actually.

Mike Bird (30:48)

Yeah. Well, we're gonna take a break, but when we come back we're gonna talk about the dangers of Hyper Calvinism, so be onto that topic very soon. What if Engaging Scripture could be both deeply informed and beautifully accessible? With the Filament Bible app, your print Bible becomes a rich interactive study experience. Simply scan the page number and Filament opens thousands of expertly crafted notes, devotional reflections, interactive maps and videos, plus audio scriptures to help you explore the text with greater insight and context. It's a seamless way to go deeper into God's word wherever you are. Learn more@filmamentbibles.com Monster Energy Everybody knows White

Monster Energy Advertiser (31:45)

Monster Zero Ultra, that's the OG. It kicked off this whole zero sugar energy drink thing, but Ultra is a whole lineup now. You've got got Strawberry Dreams, Blue Hawaiian Sunrise and Vice Guava and they all bring the Monster Energy punch. So if you've been living in the White can branch out. Ultra's got a flavor for every vibe, and every single one is Zero Sugar. Tap the banner to learn more.

Abercrombie Kids Advertiser (32:11)

Pack for Spring break with Abercrombie Kids. Their newest drop has all the outfits to wear on their favorite week of the year. Start with the new Amount Hybrid Trunk. It's breathable and quick dry, making it perfect for long family beach days and for every other adventure. Pack, graphic tees and comfy shorts. You can't go wrong with mix and match essentials. Plan your spring break escape with Abercrombie Kids. Shop in the app, online and in stores.

Mike Bird (32:42)

Welcome back. We have our third and final question for this week from Jack Jack Bufkin of Mount Juliet, Tennessee. And this is about Hyper Calvinism, which I don't like. I prefer Hypo Calvinism first. Thank you for this podcast is what Jack says. The rich content is a blessing. About five years ago I left the faith tradition of my youth and joined an Anglican church and the angels rejoiced. It has given me the space to wrestle with my experience of what I describe and hyper Calvinism. The breaking point came when a dear Christian sister who was caught up in this theology actually had to be called down by the pastor for teaching children that some in the room were predestined and some were not. I have since come to understand this may be a misinterpretation of Calvin's theology. I'd agree. I have become fascinated with William Lane Craig's exposition of Molina's middle knowledge. And Molina's work seems to make the most sense of a God who is undoubtedly sovereign in all things, but allows free will. What are your thoughts on this ancient tension between divine sovereignty and the free will he gives us? Oh, boy, Jack, you've sent us an epic question, a famous one. I just need to define some terms for our audience. Hyper Calvinism is a view that what's the purpose of evangelism? Because God's going to predestined people to salvation or damnation, and he doesn't need you to do either, so you don't need to share the gospel with anyone. God will do it all. This is where the book JI packers. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God is a great little book. I think it's a great antidote to Hyper Calvinism. But then Jack also refers to William Lane Craig, who takes a molinist view. Now, Tom, I don't know what your view of molinism is, but mine is. Juan Molina argued that God knows all possible worlds and all counterfactuals. Therefore, God creates the world that has the maximum amount of freedom where the most people will freely choose to believe. So God knows all possible worlds, and he creates the world where people are more likely to choose to believe of their own choice. Tom, do you have any thoughts on Hyper Calvinism, this middle knowledge perspective that Bill Craig often espouses in his own theology? Any thoughts on these topics for Jack?

Tom Wright (35:28)

Wow. Yeah. Obviously these questions are extremely important, particularly in certain, again, American circles. We always seem to be talking about American circles, but you and I both go to America quite a lot, so we naturally bump into people from different traditions there. And I had an email just yesterday from a friend who's been in a broadly Calvinist church and is now worried that it's becoming more Hyper Calvinist and that she doesn't approve of that and is wondering what to do. And I have sympathy for that. I think there's several things I want to say. One is that Calvin Augustine was a great man in all sorts of ways, but he was a Platonist, he was a philosopher as well as, of course, a biblical scholar. He spent a lot of his life doing exegesis, but it was working through his particular theology, which was coming out of Augustine and other of the great fathers. And he was seeing questions in those terms rather than in the terms of what the Bible itself is talking about. And I would See then the development into the 17th and 18th century of the different kinds of developed Calvinism as simply ways of trying to make Calvin work. Granted. Further questions that arise. I'm not an expert on molinism. Whenever I've heard of it and heard like your summary, your very helpful summary just now, I've had the sort of sense of why would you go there when there's so much of Scripture which is not looking at things from that point of view at all? And I have met William Lane Craig and done seminars with him two or three times. We've done some work together. And I've had the sense with Craig and with his writings that he's not actually doing biblical theology at all. He's doing philosophical theology, constructing a philosophical system, which no doubt you can have lots of biblical footnotes for that system. And it's not basically arising out of Scripture itself. So when we think of Scripture itself and what Scripture says about God's purpose for humans, then we have the original purpose, which is humans as image bearers. We have humans refusing to be image bearers and going their own way. We then have God's call and choice of Abraham and his family and his promise that in Abraham and his family, all the families of the earth will be blessed. And that promise gets refocused through David that God says, ask me and I'll give you the nations for your possession. And so the flow of biblical thought is always outwards. God chooses in order to bless. God calls people in order to develop this work of remaking the world and populating it with image bearers who will delight in God and through whom God will, will work in the world. The trouble is that when you forget that sequence of thought and make the whole thing about, oh dear, some of these people are not going to be saved, but some may be. So how do we tell the difference and how does that work out? Especially once you factor that through Augustine, then through Aquinas, and then landing up with the Reformers. I want to say we're asking the wrong question in the wrong way. And certainly the teaching about predestination as you find, I mean, classically, if you want texts on predestination, you go to Romans 8 and Romans 9 and one or two other passages like that. But actually, the key Romans 8 passage about those he predestined, he also called. Those he called, he also justified. Those he justified, he also glorified. That line about justification and glorification is a direct quote from the Septuagint of Isaiah, Isaiah 45 and in context, that bit of Isaiah is not talking about some people going to hell and some people going to heaven. It's about God calling his people who turn out to be the messianic people, the Messiah's people, and God wanting to bless the world through them. And my sense is that we have taken texts which have that focus and we've made them answer questions which they were not designed to answer, which are much later philosophical questions. This is the trouble. If you start with a philosophical theme, if you were God making a world, what would you do? And then you try to fit other things in. I want to say, no, no, no, no, don't start with your philosophical ideas about if you were God making a world, how would you do it? Start with Jesus and work out from there. That's what John1 tells you to do. That's what Colossians1 tells you to do. So what actually the whole New Testament is saying, if you want to know who God is, you are. Look long and hard at Jesus. And in Jesus you do see the challenge to people that if you don't come this way, then chaos and destruction is in line for you. And there are hard and difficult sayings down that line, but they do not sit well with even basic Calvinism, much less hyper Calvinism. And the trouble comes when people take, say, the Westminster Confession, one of the great 17th century expositions of a basically Calvinist theology, and say every word of the Westminster Confession. We've got to believe that, and if we don't, we're not being genuine Christians. And sadly there are some churches who would say that now. They are, in my view, elevating a 17th century tradition with all its historical philosophical and cultural conditioning and putting that over Scripture. And they are making their own tradition, the ultimate yardstick with Scripture simply as the footnotes, as they are indeed in the Westminster Confession. And I would say, please, please, please, can we go back and read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, et cetera, et cetera, and figure out what's going on there and use that as a way of developing a bigger and larger and more generous picture than you get in some of those philosophical schemes. And when I say more generous, I don't mean more lackadaisical, more, oh well, anything goes to who cares. No, it's a very specific focus to this picture, on Jesus, on the spirit, on the call to holiness of life life, on being called to be genuine human beings. And the thought that anyone could look around at a class of children and say, well, some of you are predestined to salvation. But some of you, presumably not that is, would use the word repulsive, but it shows that's where you get if you allow philosophy to lead you rather than scripture.

Mike Bird (42:36)

I think that's exactly right, Tom. And the only thing I want to add on that is for me the big epiphany about election and predestination is that the function of that belief in scripture and I think even within Calvin to a degree, is not to sort out who's elect and who's not. As if you've got an app on your phone, you can go like, yep, you're elect and you're not elect. The main function of predestination is to get give people a sense of assurance. If God has saved you and if you're continuing on in the faith, then that appears to be what God always intended. And if that's what God has always intended in eternity past, he's probably going to bring it through to the end, as far as we know, since God is faithful to his promises. So if you think of it as less of a trying to do the math on the population and everyone in this category, but this goes to show God's saving purposes are rooted in in eternity past and they will come to fruition. I think if you put it in that scope, it sounds so much better than the way we often get it. Whether it's hyper Calvinism or just bad Calvinism.

Tom Wright (43:48)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I think that's right. I mean, I actually live in a world now, the world of sort of Oxford Anglicanism, where not many people are talking about these questions at all. It's curious that there are many devout Christians within a few hundred yards of where I'm sitting right now who live their lives studying, praying, worshiping, teaching, evangelizing without any need to get into any of this stuff. Which tells me that if somebody has gone down the rabbit hole of even moderate Calvinism, let alone hyper Calvinism, they maybe need to look around and say there are lots of other Christians who don't seem to do it this way. Can we lear from one another? Can we actually engage in dialogue? And if somebody says, oh no, no, because they're all wicked liberals. Well, don't believe that because some of us actually believe that the Bible is more important than human traditions, including the reformers traditions.

Mike Bird (44:47)

That's right, that's right. Well, Tom, that's all we have time for today, but we'll be back next time with more questions. So keep sending us your questions. You know, go to ask ntright.com send us your questions there. But if you're waiting for more content from Tom and I remember, you can become a subscriber and get our bonus episodes. You know, for the price of one bad coffee a month, you can get four extra episodes a month where we cover great stuff on hot topics of the day and now forthcoming series. We're looking at parts of Ephesians. So it's goodbye from me, Mike Bird,

Tom Wright (45:30)

and goodbye from me, Tom Wright.

Mike Bird (45:32)

And we look forward to seeing you on the next episode of Ask N.T. wright. Anything.