.png)
The Pastor's Heart with Dominic Steele
Christian leaders join Dominic Steele for a deep end conversation about our hearts and different aspects of Christian ministry each Tuesday afternoon.
We share personally, pastorally and professionally about how we can best fulfill Jesus' mission to save the lost and serve the saints.
The discussion is broadcast live on Facebook then available in video on our website <u><b><a href="http://www.thepastorsheart.net">http://www.thepastorsheart.net</a></u></b> and via audio podcast.
The Pastor's Heart with Dominic Steele
The battle for the truth of the gospel - with Thomas Schreiner
One of the world’s leading New Testament Scholars Thomas Schriener is in Sydney for the Moore College Lectures on ‘The Battle for the truth of the gospel.’
At the center of his attention is NT Wright and the New Perspective on Paul, a debate that questions whether ancient Judaism was legalistic.
Schreiner tells of his roots in Roman Catholicism, a transformative evangelical faith, and the enduring importance of the Reformation perspective of justification by faith alone.
Schreiner, who chairs the Christian Standard Bible translation committee, takes us behind the scenes of the Christian Standard Bible's translation process, revealing the rigorous debates and decisions that shape how we read that translation.
He outlines how denominational diversity influences translation accuracy.
Plus we unpack the profound need to teach biblical gender roles in contemporary culture.
Thomas Schreiner is professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological College in Louisville, Kentucky.
The Church Co
http://www.thechurchco.com is a website and app platform built specifically for churches.
--
Become a regular financial supporter of The Pastor's Heart via Patreon.
today the battle for the truth of the gospel. Thomas schreiner is our guest. Dominic steel here with the pastor's heart and thomas schreiner has written 20 plus theological books, including a stack of commentaries. He's visiting sydney from the southern baptist theological seminary speaking at more theological colleges. Big lecture series. The title of the lectures is the Battle for the Truth of the Gospel, and Tom thanks for coming in. And I wonder if we could start with your heart, your pastor's heart, and the work God did on you growing up as a Roman Catholic and how you came to understand justification, because you've been talking a lot about justification.
Speaker 2:Yes, I grew up as a Roman Catholic. I'm the sixth of eight children Went to church regularly. For nine years I went to Catholic schools. Our Catholic school closed. I started to attend a public school. I started to attend a public school. When I was there, I started dating a girl who was a young evangelical Christian and she just started telling me about her faith in God in a personal way I had not experienced before.
Speaker 1:Now, I grew up Catholic as well. I was an altar boy at our church. Were you kind of nominally Catholic or highly engaged Catholic?
Speaker 2:When I was young, more highly engaged, but by the time it came to altar boy I was only one of two or three in our class who was not an altar boy, really Right. So I started to move away from it.
Speaker 1:I didn't have any hostility about towards my catholicism, I just didn't care now, when you came to trust jesus christ um, I'm presuming you then went through the process of thinking how is my new faith different to what I had before? What? Was your sorting out of those ideas and even as you look back now.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I had never read the Bible before. So for the first time I was reading the Bible. As I read the Bible Paul's letters, but all of the New Testament for the first time I realized we're not justified by what we do, but by the grace of God. I had never heard that. I was astonished to read that and it was freeing and liberating, and also just reading scripture. I was in a Bible study with other kids my age.
Speaker 2:I saw the beauty and the power of gospel and the beauty and power of Christ in a way I had not encountered in Roman Catholic circles.
Speaker 1:Did you feel angry about that? That they were so close and yet they'd hidden it from you, or anything like that?
Speaker 2:No, I never felt angry about that. Yeah, actually, I would say I was grateful for so many things. Roman Catholicism prepared me for the gospel. I believed in the Bible.
Speaker 1:I believed in the divinity, at least in theory, even if you hadn't read it.
Speaker 2:That's right. Well, yeah, what kind of belief was that? I never read it, but I believed Jesus died for my sins. I didn't care, but I at least intellectually believed it. I believed in the resurrection. I believed in the resurrection, I believed in the Trinity, so in that way it was a sort of preparation for the gospel.
Speaker 1:Then you've been lecturing on Galatians at the Moore College lectures and you've been, as I've been, listening to those lectures, you've been really taking issue, particularly as a conversation partner, with the new perspective on paul. Um, for those, I mean, there'll be all sorts of people listening. Some will be very aware of these issues and some not at all. Perhaps you could go right back to the beginning and, uh, what is the new perspective on Paul?
Speaker 2:Yes. Well, I think, to be brief, the new perspective argues that the Judaism of Paul's day was not legalistic and was not trying to earn righteousness by works. So the new perspective argues that fundamentally, the big issue is Jew-Gentile inclusion, the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God. So the Reformation, understanding that you're saved by faith, over against works, works in terms of human performance or trying to earn merit with God. The New Perspective says that's not what's happening in the New Testament. I think we need to listen to the New Perspective. The insight that Jews and Gentiles are united into the one people of God. That's true, I agree. But I think when we read the New Testament accurately, we do see as well that there is an argument against the idea that we can earn our place in God's sight by our works. As Paul says, god justifies the ungodly. I think that is the heart of the gospel.
Speaker 1:Now, when I was an undergraduate at Theological College and I'm talking 1994, 95, 96, these issues were swirling around and it was pretty hard to pin down exactly what it was the new perspective was saying, but it did feel like the very truth of the gospel was at stake. And now I haven't actually spent a lot of time thinking about it for 20 years until I dive back in listening to your lectures this week. What's happened in the last 20 years on that? I mean, where is the debate up to now?
Speaker 2:Yes, I think people have sort of settled in the camps.
Speaker 1:So I think traditionally but that wasn't the case in the late 90s. All very fluid.
Speaker 2:Right. People were faced with these issues for the first time, trying to discern what was being said, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the movement. But I think now, at least in the Reformed community especially, there's a sense of no the new perspective, even though it has some insights, has fundamentally got it wrong. And then there are other groups within the broader ambit of evangelicalism who I think would say, yeah, the new perspective fundamentally got it right, but there's not as much conversation between the two Sides have settled.
Speaker 1:What percentage would you say? I mean, that's a hard thing, I guess, to say.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that is a great question. Hard thing, I guess, to say yeah, that is a great question. I would say the reason that's such a difficult question. I suppose there are still many, many Christians who have no idea.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And the churches have never heard of it. So this is a wild guess. I'd say 60% wouldn't know what we're talking about. But then I'd say I would guess it'd be 30, 10, 30 more reformed 10. I think they'd be a minority. The new perspective reading maybe 10%, but I'm not a prophet.
Speaker 1:I'm not the son of a prophet and I mean even 10% is worrying if that's 10% of people who would broadly identify as evangelical. But actually listening to you haven't got a clear sense of assurance.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I agree, there are books coming out in the scholarly world. You know Matthew Bates' book. Instead of saying salvation by faith alone, he wants to say salvation by allegiance alone. Now I think Matthew is a believer, but that is quite a change of one of the solas and I would argue that instead of faith alone, faith is fundamentally receptive, receiving what God has done for us in Jesus. When you say salvation is by allegiance alone, now you've put the emphasis not on what God has done, but what we do our allegiance.
Speaker 1:I'm aligning myself to him.
Speaker 2:Yeah, my commitment, so I think that's a…. Can I just push you myself to him? Yeah, my commitment, so I think that's a….
Speaker 1:Can I just push you?
Speaker 2:there Sure.
Speaker 1:You say he's a believer. But what does that mean? To say he's a believer if he doesn't trust in the atoning death of Christ?
Speaker 2:Well, I think he does. Yeah, I think he does trust in the atoning death of Christ, but I don't think he expresses it in a way that's consistent with the New Testament. Witness, I mean John Owen, said a long time ago in his great book Justification by Faith that there are people who are justified by faith alone, who don't articulate it well. Now, of course, god only knows at the end of the day who are believers, and I don't think it's helpful. I think a defective presentation of the gospel has ongoing consequences that are very worrying, and I would not bring somebody on my staff who didn't have clarity on this issue. So I'm not saying it's a minor issue, but I think there are people who are believers but their own understanding lacks sufficient clarity.
Speaker 1:You've talked about engaging with Tom Wright on these issues and, again, some will know these issues deeply, others won't. Who is Tom Wright? What's his involvement in this debate?
Speaker 2:Tom Wright is a famous British New Testament scholar who has written voluminously. He is extremely bright. Tom is remarkably gifted because he writes both in the scholarly sphere and in more popular books as well. He's a new perspective advocate. Probably he's the one person who's had the most influence on evangelicals with respect to the new perspective.
Speaker 1:And your engagement.
Speaker 2:Well, we had a conversation and discussion slash debate in Atlanta at the Evangelical Theological Society in 2010, along with Frank Thielman of Beeson University, and, yeah, I think that was a very fruitful discussion in many ways, but the disagreements remain.
Speaker 1:You pushed him on assurance.
Speaker 2:Yes. So Tom, just to explain, tom does not believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which means that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is the notion that the basis, the ultimate basis of our right standing with God is the righteousness of Christ. That is credited to us when we believe in Jesus, so we're forgiven of our sins, but we also receive Christ's righteousness. I think we see that in 2 Corinthians, 5.21. God made're forgiven of our sins, but we also receive Christ's righteousness. I think we see that in 2 Corinthians 5.21.
Speaker 2:God made him, who knew no sin, to be sin on our behalf so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Whereas Tom says at least one basis, basis, final basis of our right standing with God, is our works. And I said to Tom Tom, to use the word basis, basis instead of evidence or fruit, is concerning, because it would rob people of their assurance. And Tom said to me I laugh because I don't believe what he said, but he said but it's still concerning, right? Tom said British people don't struggle with that. But it's not true. It's just not true. I mean British people.
Speaker 1:I've talked to British people who struggle with that.
Speaker 2:We're all human. True, yeah, I mean British people. I've talked to British people who struggle with that. We're all human beings. We have different personalities, different cultures, but this is a universal problem, a problem of assurance. I mean, 1 John was written so that we know we have eternal life. So this is an issue that pertains to all Christians everywhere. And it is not true that, oh, this culture doesn't struggle with that issue. Because we're all human beings, we all have similar struggles, even if our cultures are different in some respects. And you know, if you look at worldwide British culture and American culture, they're different but they're not like radically different.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so what did you say in reply?
Speaker 2:I don't remember now what. I said it may have been a, you know it was a Q&A going back and forth, but sometimes in those Q&As I didn't have an immediate response. I can't remember if I had a response or an opportunity to respond, because it was 14 years ago. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean it does put an emphasis really on being in the family, being in the church, rather than actually trusting in Christ's work.
Speaker 2:Yes, they put the emphasis on ecclesiology instead of soteriology, by which I mean, yeah, church membership instead of salvation. So I mean Tom will say justification is fundamentally about who's your brother and sister, instead of saying justification is fundamentally about your right relationship with God. Personally, I think it's quite easy to show that's not in accord with the New Testament. Justification is about our right relationship with God. No one is justified before God by the law. That's clearly talking about your relationship with God. I have always felt on that. It's easy to show that justification is fundamentally about salvation and it has implications for life in the church. But I think Tom gets that backwards.
Speaker 1:As you then thought. I mean, I was listening to you in these lectures but I'm just thinking as you were speaking. You were talking about the new perspective, but I'm imagining you're also kind of thinking Roman Catholicism in the background as well. How does what you were saying in the lectures on Galatians apply to Roman Catholicism?
Speaker 2:Yeah well, formal Roman Catholic theology argues that our justification is based on our works. That formulation, I think, contradicts the Pauline gospel, because Paul says we're justified by faith, not by works. And I believed as a Roman Catholic growing up not that I cared about it too much, but I believed if I were to be right with God. I don't think I even knew the word justification, but if I were to be saved I had to do the sufficient works.
Speaker 1:I have a memory of walking through the playground at year nine in school, thinking about the difference between us Catholics and the Protestants and thinking I get it. The difference between us and the Protestants is we take God seriously because we have to do things in order to be saved, whereas they just get forgiven.
Speaker 2:Well, see, you knew far more than I did. I did not even know what Protestants believed because, as I got older, I didn't care much. To me as a teenager it was sort of like, oh, you're using American terms, you're a Democrat, you're a Republican, oh well, who cares? So you knew more than I did. I just thought, well, of course Protestants must be wrong because they came 1500 years too late. And I thought, well, we've got to be right because we've been around.
Speaker 1:We were there first.
Speaker 2:Yeah, we were there first. So whatever came 1,500 years later can't be right. And that's all I knew. You knew more than I did, Okay.
Speaker 1:Now, with another hat, you are chair of the Christian Standard Bible Translation Committee, and so you've had a deep interest over a long time in bible translations. Um, I remember it was I think it was 2010, 2011 that we took on the christian standard bible and, um, uh, how's its take up being? Well? That was the holman then, before it was the christian standard bible. What's the take upup been of the Christian Standard Bible amongst evangelicalism in different parts of the world?
Speaker 2:I think it's doing well. Yeah, you know it's kind of a slow start, but the recent readouts I've seen, as it is increasingly being read, were very encouraged. I think there are clearly other good translations out there in English, but, yeah, it's doing quite well. We're encouraged, we do. Maybe it's out. I haven't heard yet, but we have an edition out there for people who aren't Americans. You know non-American spellings and, I think, measurements. We're trying to put out a version I don't know if it's out yet that has measurements that are not according to the United States, because of course we use feet and so forth and so on instead of meters and liters and that sort of thing.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Take us inside the translation committee kind of gatherings that you have. What are some of the things that you've talked about in the I don't know the last year or so? I mean I've noticed changes in the last 10 years. I mean I looked up today to see what you'd done with 1 Corinthians 12, verse 7, because I remember it had you'd missed the sun off the front of good for the common good, whereas now it's definitely saying common good there, and so I thought ah, there's a little tweak that you've made since I last checked five years ago and was annoyed with that translation five years ago, and then I was really pleased to see today.
Speaker 1:But what are some of the discussions that you have?
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah Well, first of all I just want to explain that the Christian Standard Bible is a revision of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, so that is sort of our base text and that translation was a fresh translation worked over by I think over 400 people were involved. Then it was decided the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I think over 400 people were involved. Then it was decided the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I think was a good translation, but it had some idiosyncrasies and flaws in it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I didn't like Philippians 2 very much yeah.
Speaker 2:So we, and also there was the complaint that it was too Southern Baptist. So what we did? We formed a smaller committee with still consultants and we tried to get more denominational representation. Now, of course we couldn't cover everyone, but we had Lutherans, anglican Bible Church, baptists, presbyterians, so we tried to get a wider scope of scholars. To make sure, are we and inadvertently just putting in denominational distinctives unconsciously into the text? So I think that helped us read the text more fairly. You know you get these different groups involved and then so I mean we had hundreds of discussions, hundreds.
Speaker 2:I mean you're talking about every verse of the Bible right we didn't talk about every verse, and you recognize what a gargantuan task this is. I mean, you're talking about every verse of the Bible, right?
Speaker 2:We didn't talk about every verse, and you recognize what a gargantuan task this is, and you recognize you're never finished because, well, language is changing and I think it's a good translation. But there are things you miss right. And so we do make changes as time goes along. We don't bring out a new text every year. It's every five or ten years that we do make changes as time goes along. We don't bring out a new text every year.
Speaker 2:You know, it's every five or ten years that we do that because we don't want an unstable text, but we're constantly looking at okay, is this something that's not quite right? We have big conversations. I mean we could talk about a lot of things, but should we put Yahweh in for every use of? Well, it depends on how you translate it. But Yahweh in the Old Testament, but most English versions use the capital L-O-R-D and we went that way. You could make good arguments for the other. So that was a huge big discussion and we had a number of more cosmic discussions like that. When do we translate christos as messiah? When do we translate it as christ?
Speaker 1:yes, that's interesting. Yes, I remember now the holman, I think, fairly consistently translated it as Messiah all through the New Testament, whereas I think you've come back to using Christ a lot more.
Speaker 2:Yes, that's true, that's true. So we and I can't remember off the top of my head all the criteria, but we had certain criteria we followed. I think we were consistent where we did render it as Messiah, particularly in the Gospels, less so in Paul's letters.
Speaker 1:So it's continuing. These discussions are continuing, yeah.
Speaker 2:We plan to revise every few years. So the committee still exists, yes, but we're not doing an intense renovation of the translation right now. But we're always looking at and people write me hey, why did you do this verse this way? And we're always looking at that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, cool, you were speaking on complementarianism. What's at stake in complementarian theology?
Speaker 2:What's at stake in complementarian theology? I would say I think it's the clarity of what Scripture teaches. So this is a very controversial subject in our society today and I think what worries me. I think there are egalitarians that are evangelicals, but I think it's clear enough in Scripture that there are differences and I actually think it's the knockoff effect of saying well, these verses don't really mean that we can say there aren't these differences between men and women.
Speaker 2:And I think we're seeing this, it's bleeding into some evangelical circles, even on issues of homosexuality. Now I'm seeing, because I've been in this debate for 40 years, you know, 40 years ago I used to say, well, hermeneutically, paul argues against homosexuality based on creation and against women serving as pastors based on creation. And in those days everyone would say to me well, the other is so much more clear. But I'd say, well, look, it's hermeneutically the same basis. But now isn't this interesting? Now we see people beginning to say, well, those arguments on homosexuality aren't even so clear. Well, that's very worrying, isn't it?
Speaker 2:And the other issue I would say I don't know the outside of the United States, but the mainline churches that accepted female pastors. They have lock, stock and barrel gone for homosexuality. I think there's a principial relationship going on there. So I'm not saying everybody who's an egalitarian is an unbeliever, but I'm saying a defective hermeneutic on this issue has consequences down the line and we're seeing it. We see it in the West, we see it with the mainline churches and it is bleeding into some churches that have historically been called evangelical. So that's very concerning.
Speaker 1:You just described, if you like, the egalitarian church where she's the pastor. That's right and the hermeneutic that they've got will potentially lead them to accepting that gender distinctions don't matter in personal, in marriage. Can you just take us on that logic? How do we get through that logic there?
Speaker 2:Yeah, and you know I'd be the first to say not all egalitarians make that journey. Praise God, right, they don't.
Speaker 1:There's a consistency about that journey.
Speaker 2:I think you're saying yeah, well, yes, there's a consistency about that journey. I think you're saying Well, yes. So if Paul says I don't permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man 1 Timothy 2.12, then what's the grounding? For Adam was created first and then Eve. So he appeals to God's good created order that God has established. That's what he appeals to. He doesn't say because a woman is uneducated. He doesn't say because they're duped by false teaching which a common egalitarian reads, but he doesn't say a word about those things. He appeals to creation before the fall and the sin.
Speaker 2:When it comes to same-sex issues, what does Paul say in Romans 1, 26 and 27? Same-sex relations, behavior between men and women, is contrary to nature. What he means by contrary to nature? It's contrary to God's intention in creating human beings. He does not mean contrary to your psychological nature. It's contrary to God's intention in creating human beings. He does not mean contrary to your psychological nature, your internal dispositions. He means contrary to what God intended when he created Adam and Eve.
Speaker 2:And he created Adam and Eve, and Jesus appeals to that as well, doesn't he when he talks about marriage? And marriage is rooted in creation before the fall. God created both Adam and then Eve. So if you undermine that argument from creation in the case of 1 Timothy 2, then there is a pattern established where you can begin to make similar arguments regarding homosexuality. And it's happened and it's happening and it is occurring in some schools that have been historically evangelical. So we're seeing this happen. Many schools are holding the line, praise the Lord, even some egalitarian schools. But it's tough right, principally for the egalitarian to say in one case the creation argument holds and it doesn't in the other.
Speaker 1:Well, since I've got you here and you did write the commentary on Romans and the commentary on 1 Corinthians nature in Romans 1, is it the same? It's the same nature that we see in 1 Corinthians 11, isn't it yes? And so if we're going to hold fast on Romans 1, we've got to hold fast on, and doesn't the very nature of things teach us? What does the very nature of things teach us in 1 Corinthians 11 in terms of the gender distinctions there?
Speaker 2:Well, that's a complicated text and I wrote an article on this in the book Recovery in Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. But I would say there's a lot of things. We could talk about that passage a long time. But I would say I think Paul's interest in that passage continues to be that the distinctions between men and women are perpetuated and manifested in the community so that the women, by shutting themselves of veils by the way, it's very difficult to know what the custom was there- yeah, veils or long hair, yeah so there's a huge debate there.
Speaker 2:I think it's probably some kind of covering, but the women, by shedding themselves of such, were communicating, I believe, independence from male leadership one, but secondly, they were erasing distinctions between males and females that God wants to be preserved. So I would actually argue that the two texts, in that sense, are very similar. Now, not everyone agrees with what I'm going to say next, but I would maintain that what we have in that passage is culture and the transcendent principle come together. So I don't believe that it's required that women wear veils or coverings, but what is required is, in our cultural situation, the distinctions between males and females continue to be upheld. So an example I'd give.
Speaker 2:I think it's a pretty easy example, at least in my institution if I came in to teach my class and I was wearing a dress, my president would fire me and he should if I was doing that as a serious attempt. However, in Scotland you could wear a kilt. That's a different culture. It sends a different signal. Nobody thinks in Scotland if somebody's wearing a kilt while they're trying to be a woman, but they would think if I'm wearing a dress. Now, culture constantly changes, uh, so we have to be careful. But? But the other thing I'd want to say is isn't it so clear that our culture today western culture, but of course it's spreading all over the world is utterly confused about what it means to be a man or a woman? And.
Speaker 2:And it's wreaking havoc, and we see this in the transgender movement, which is so clearly contrary to scripture, and it grieves me that so many young men and young women are not getting clear teaching and help on these matters. God knows best.
Speaker 1:What's your word, then, to pastors? What do you want us to do?
Speaker 2:On this issue. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I would say, faithfully teach the Bible. The Bible is the way. By teaching the Bible clearly what the Bible teaches about men and women in marriage, and in the way, by teaching the Bible clearly what the Bible teaches about men and women in marriage and in the church, you will help young men and young women and old men and old women to flourish spiritually, to have a relationship with Christ that is pleasing to God. These are not abstract matters. They pertain to our everyday lives, to what it means to be a boy, what it means to be a girl, what it means to live a life that's pleasing to God. These are things our grandmothers and grandfathers knew, but we have to teach our generation today anew, because so much of the culture is spreading messages that are confusing, and that is very difficult.
Speaker 1:Thank you so much for coming in and talking to us. My pleasure, Tom Schreiner has been our guest. He is a senior lecturer at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and has been speaking at the Moore College annual lectures on the battle for the truth of the gospel. My name's Dominic Steele and we'll look forward to your company next Tuesday afternoon on the Pastor's Heart.
