The most important part of this was Steve's attempt to explain the 2 greek words most often translated as "eternal punishment", without which I doubt the massive teaching of eternal hell and torture would be so widely believed in. Every literal translation I know of translate this as "age-enduring" or "age lasting", meaning the greek word does not demand that it be eternal, although if hell was elsewhere described as eternal, the term would allow for that. It is just not a limiting phrase. If there were somewhere else that this was described as eternal then it would leave for that interpretation, but as far as I can find there is no where in the entire Bible that describes afterlife judgement as "everlasting", and many places which describe all eventually being converted. Als, as Steve points out, the word "Kolasan" in the greek actually means "correction" or "pruning", so it also leads to the idea of a temporary time of heavy persuasion to convert the hardened heart of sinful souls. Which all reflects a God who is Love, not an eternally wrathful tormentor, thank God, praise God, Halleluia!
That is correct. God is love and he will in the end right ALL wrong and restore his entire creation which includes ALL beings human, divine, and animal.
@@claudiaperfetti7694 "God had bound all in disobedience, that he may have mercy on all" "this is the judgement of the world, now the prince of the world will be cast out, and when I am lifted up I will drag all men to me" "every knee shall bow confessing Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the God the father" "God wills everyone to come to full knowledge of the truth" "the son of man has come to save what is lost" "so in Adam all die, so too in Christ all will be made alive"
I’ve only recently given my life to Christ. I’ve been researching Christianity for 10 years. I personally found this really interesting. Thanks for being willing to have this conversation. God bless
L C All I’d say is learn to discern truth as there are false teachers who twist scripture. Just read your Bible in plain English. It will make sense as it is without adding or taking away from it.
@@devonbiker neither of them would advocate for reading it in plain English. Know the context it was being written in and to whom it was written otherwise you'll see what isn't there as you'll have bias
@Jim of course we are warned against legalism in the New Testament. Legalism is salvation by works. But how does that in any way negate or qualify the fact that "saving faith involved both the faithfulness of Christ and our faith in [Christ]"? Those are two completely different categories.
Amen, it’s like falling off a cruise liner and starting to drown but then Jesus throws us the life aid.. We grab the life aid and are saved, yes we had to respond by grabbing the lifeaid but when we get on the boat and have been saved from drowning we don’t boast about ourselves and say it was us who saved ourselves by grabbing the life aid.. Of course it wasn’t! We boast about and praise the one who threw us the lifeaid in the first place. Our arbitrary ‘work’ of grabbing the life aid is just the response to the saving action already done.
It's not just Justin who misses out... I'd like to have heard more from Phil, but Steve kept cutting him off. His poor discipline let the conversation down sadly.
I had ENOUGH of Steve Chalke (no disrespect intended) a YEAR ago, during the debate on "Does The Bible Contain Errors." (Somewhere around that time, anyway.)
I wonder how many people commenting stayed to the end where Phil reveals he became a Christian twenty odd years earlier at a talk given by Steve! My point is, God is bigger than our divisions. Let us disagree but always with gentleness and love, and in unity.
David Dibben do you agree though that someone has to be right? And one way has to be right and the other wrong? Why are we so afraid to judge between truth and falsehood?
@@NoContextRDH By their fruit you shall know them. If they are kind and loving. That's a way we can know. Quite often the argument is not about truth and falsehood. It is about my interpretation versus your interpretation.
I think it was meant to be a kind of unfair set up where Justin Poshtwit was going to stitch up Steve snd feed him to Moore. But the contrast in the quality of Steve and his well educated arguments from a scholastic base, rather than a narrow church hegemony, motivated from a deep compassion for people just shines out.
@@billtimmons7071 Yes. Phil just regards Steve with suspicion. I think Phil has been indoctrinated rather than arrived at his conclusions by deep thought. Steve seems to have broken free from his indoctrinated position, and has genuinely engaged with thought and reason and scholarship. Steve needs to be more confident...what he says is hopeful and good news. He doesn't need to fear the indoctrinated mob.
Christian Universalism doesn't believe that "all paths lead to God" nor that God will save a person against that person's will. God shall win that person over to Himself eventually because He wills to do so and He is all wise and all powerful and is love.
Steve, I get you man and I understand your heart. Love your theology. God bless you. From The Rock Ministry Malaysia. "Christ is the reconcilor of all"
he's not even taking a hard 'right' or 'wrong' stance. Phil constantly mis-characterized him and forced this debate into a mess, because had to constantly defend against false accusations. But, yeah, he's way more in line than Phil. You gotta try to get in ALL the evidence, and it's very hard.
@@ForeFrontosa But his exact stance is irrelevant because he still holds that *some* of Paul's letters were not written by him. Phil's point works just as well if Steve says three of Paul's letters are non-genuine as if he's talking about six.
And thank you Phil Moore I appreciate your stance. Steve”s view is very dangerous and the way you pointed it out is amazing. I dont read much but do listen to a lot of doctrine. GOD Bless
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 O dear! Maybe that's why he has so many women helpers, workers with him in the Lord, and why he loved the Phillipian's church so much
What a cracking good discussion,a real corker. I normally listen on the radio on a Saturday afternoon but as I've got to go out tomorrow I thought I'd watch the TH-cam version instead and I'm so glad I did. Things got impassioned but stayed civilized as always under Justin's care. This was SO interesting and a bit erudite.
Subtextually, I perceive that Moore and the Moderator "teams up" on Chalke like two bullies using intimidation; so in effect Chalke is PUT on the defensive, as anyone in such a situation would be. I've watched many uploads and have noticed the subtle yet tell-tale signs of anti-Chalke bias in the Moderator. Then, many of Chalke's detractors holds this against him because they don't want others to really hear the actual content of what he's telling us. If anything, Steve Chalke should be commended for his patience, tolerance and for having a sense of humor.
Took the words out of my mouth. I sensed it was meant to be a stitch up by Justin Brierly. But the sheer quality of chalk shone out despite the despicable and unchristian way he was treated
@@stevenfrasier5718 Too right. They’re a couple of bleeping bleepers. Chalk was a bleeding hero just for maintaining his composure. I hope a lot of undecided people noticed the moral contrast between Chalk’s genuine humanity the pseud-moralism and dogmatic religious bigotry of the other two.
Interesting how by in large, when Steve talks the room is quite. When anyone else talks Steve is going "hm hm hm hm hm hm". You think that's any indicator of his willingness to dialogue?
Steve definitely comes across as defensive - perhaps some of it is his personality and some of it is a genuine feeling that he doesn't have the majority of scholars or leaders on his side. I think Phil makes a strong case that Steve has some inconsistencies in his logic around Martin Luther's translation and then its application as Universalism.
I also got the same impression as others… That Steve was a bit insufferable, however I do wonder if it’s different when you are trying to defend a book that you’ve written versus someone else who has not written the book trying to criticize it?
@@euged As an author, though of fiction, I think he interupts more because this feels so personal to him, like he has to defend his own identity. I can understand that.
I'm shocked at the negativity towards Steve here! Here are some points about why I think this discussion went the way it did: 6:54 - Phil somehow suggests that Steve is not able to think Paul is brilliant, while at the same time making a statement that most scholars have questions about 6 of the books. These ideas are not exclusive and is the first of some senseless attacks that Steve is left having to defend against. 7:00 - Phil falsely claims that Steve says he doesn't believe Paul wrote 6 of the books. Again Steve has to defend himself against this stupid minor point, wasting time. They end up checking it and it turns out that indeed Steve was commenting on the general consensus of scholars, and it was about 3 of the books, not 6. Phil was way off on his accusation, on both the personal and detail level. Note how Steve addresses this harsh accusation by laughing it off with 'actually i just read that this morning!!' Very gracious response to a pointless attack. 9:25 - Phil starts talking about sources and then questions footnotes. Steve says there are footnotes and besides, he just calls people to use Google to supplement the references that excessive (for a popular level book) footnotes would give. Phil ignores what Steve is actually saying and answers with a highbrow "I don't do my theology on Google, Steve". Steve was only suggesting using google as a resource to verify any perceived missing references. Again Steve let's it rest and just says 'well maybe you should' with a smile.. again, pointless and errant attack countered with a defence and eventual smile. 10:05 - Phil says 'what strikes me MOST' is that it's not endorsed by NT Wright... that was the MOST striking thing?? For all of the commenters talking about Phil's education, what degree did he require to make that observation?? The point is that he's not even interested in a discussion, just endless petty and meaningless attacks, forcing Steve to have to defend. 12:00- Phil isn't totally accurate about NT Wright. Tom seems pretty non-committal on his stance as Paul the author of the pastorals, he almost never uses them in his work (ie: the public discussion). Steve again has to correct on a mundane point, pleading him to think of it as 'serious scholarship'. 16:00 - Phil is not hearing (not interested in listening) the larger point Steve is making, using Hebrews and Origen as an example. 22:30 - This is really a tough one for me. Phil humiliates Steve on a meaningless point about how his name is very visible on his book, claiming that it's 'fascinating'. At 22:45 you can get a glimpse that Steve was definitely embarrassed and hurt by it. But he laughs it off. To be honest, I think Phil was trying to just take a playful jab here (especially after Steve impulsively held up the book and said 'buy it'), and it wasn't intended to be as mean as it came out. But still, it's another example of the type of stuff Steve had to constantly defend against. Phil continues throughout the discussion to categorize the book as 'weakest chapter', 'second weakest chapter', etc... constantly prodding Steve, that's very unfair and harsh. He also keeps bringing up the '6 out of 13 books' bit that he doesn't even realize that he was shown to be wrong about that earlier... Steve has to repeat his reasoning numerous times, desperately trying to get Phil to listen. His reason is that he wanted to avoid conflict and so will only focus on 7 of the books to give examples of weaponization. In fact, he could have used the other 6 books to find even more examples! If Phil understood the point here, he would realize that he's actually making Steve's case stronger. Listen carefully and properly to Steve's rationale and think it through... I could go on and the discussion does open up a bit afterwards. Steve goes more on the offensive later for sure, but he's the one who is under the microscope with his book, not Phil. So obviously he's going to talk more. Plus he loves to share his views with passion, that's his personality. I greatly enjoyed the energy in this debate. I can't blame Steve for his rant at the very end, he was mistreated the whole talk. And he's right about the dangers of reading the Bible too shallowly.
-The point of contrast of Paul's brilliance is to say that Chalke seemed to be saying the Pauline letters are worth reading because Paul was a genius; but this is undermined if the genius Paul didn't write all of them. -Tom Wright undoubtedly thinks Paul wrote the Pastorals. He wrote a book about the Pastorals and talks about Paul all the time in it, and how Paul's attitude in the pastorals links to his attitude in e.g. Philippians. -How many of the Pauline books Steve thinks Paul wrote is more or less irrelevant; because it's clear he doesn't believe all 13-14 of them were. If he did, he would say so; and not just pick out one of the "disputed" books as one Paul wrote. The one thing you can say to his credit on this matter was that he does not explicitly teach this in his book (although the way he frames it is clearly meant to bring people to that conclusion).
I think Steve was trying to bully Phil a little but Phil wasn't having it. Paul will always be controversial as even the Apostle Peter said there are things he wrote that are hard to understand.
Trivial differences but who knows why unless we can ask Paul or Luke. The question is did Paul have a real experience and this we can confirm unequivocally yes. Paul was a changed man after his encounter. He was a monotheistic Jew who worshipped and taught Jesus was God and was beheaded for it. Wow. Something happened whether or not some bystanders heard, saw or fell down or not
When people get as defensively aggressive as Steve Chalke, constantly talking over the other person, it makes me think that they know they are pushing a different agenda to the one they are claiming to push. Justin usually does a great job but in this case failed to shut Steve up and let Phil speak sufficiently. Steve Chalke comes across as someone who is trying to reinterpret/change Christianity to fit with his social justice warrior world view. As Phil says, he reads stuff into Paul that just isn't there in order to try and achieve this. However, it's too late now; the Church of England certainly (but also most other mainstream denominations in the UK) has been changing itself to fit with secular society for so long now that I struggle to take it seriously as a religion any more. It's a nice middle-class (mostly) guilt-reliever (using going to church as an excuse to behave in a secular fashion for the other 95% of the time) and virtue-signaller (let's take up every social justice cause going). Yet, even aligning itself with and following slavishly the changing secular culture of the day, Christianity is, sadly, of insufficient societal relevance in the UK nowadays for the C of E to justify being the 'established' church of the country or for Bishops (or any other religious representative) to be in the House of Lords. You only have to look at the census surveys to see how few people now say they are religious or even believe in God to see that the game is up for Christianity as a meaningful influencer on society. What a sad and sorry state of affairs.
I agree with you Steve Cass ;-) I agree with you Steve. I also got hurts & wounds by the church but also have a heavenly patient Father who tenderly teaches me not to be a harsh agitator of the justice. Mean talk comes from the heart of suffering & religious position only masks the case. But I also projected many things by this sick source. Now I fight to keep in focus the spiritual heavenly domain. Paul's word need cautious approach. They contains both cultural and timeless statements. Apostle Peter warned us not to despise or misinterpret them!
Is it just me, or does Steve get upset because he feels he is being judged about his view of the gospel, after going on and on about Luther and judging his view of the gospel? Maybe I missed something.
@@cmoneygiles They think we're all quite inmoral because we believe sins are specific, we have to repent and flee sin, and all the rest of the Gospel of the New Testament. Basically if we don't agree with their view, we're the worst of creatures,
Could you do a similar topic with Richard Rohr? Hes an oddly popular guy, and there is a lot of debate about his writings and church history. I would like to see someone formally challenge his views and him respond to them.
I don't believe you can sit down a false teacher and expect a good debate. It's hopeless, you see, when you start by saying you mean the opposite of what you yourself say... What can you expect from a" conversation". They think any trick is valid to make them words mean whatever is necessary! As long as it works, and you agree with them.
Why don't we all just make it up as we go along like Steve does? According to him we've pretty much misunderstood everything anyway. Just start your own religion Steve.
Graham Williams That’s the problem with liberal churches. They are run by people who think they are God and who are fighting a losing battle finding enough people who are willing to worship them.
I grew up in this “universalist” ideology. Then I read the scriptures and challenged my presuppositions. I think the fundamental assumption is what Steve talks about around the 1hr:13m mark: that love ultimately transforms everyone. This view eliminates human freedom and, in my view, requires a new understanding of the fall of Satan and the fall of mankind. Love did not keep Satan from rebellion and it also didn’t keep Adam and Eve from it. I truly hope Universalism is true, but I can’t get behind the emotional arguments and lack of scriptural support.
This may help: John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” 1 John 2:2 (NIV) He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. Romans 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 2 Corinthians 5:15 He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. Romans 5:6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. John 4:42 Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world (kosmos). 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world (kosmos). 1 Timothy 4:9-11 9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. 10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 11 These things command and teach. John 12:32-33 (NIV) 32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. 1 Corinthians 15:22-23a 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order… 1 Timothy 2:3-6 (KJV) 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have (thelo) all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Ephesians 1:9-10 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him. Isaiah 25:7-8 7 And He will destroy on this mountain The surface of the covering cast over all people, And the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death forever, And the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces; The rebuke of His people He will take away from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken. Romans 5:18-19 18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many (all) were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many (all) will be made righteous.
There is no evidence in scripture for any rebellion in heaven! Just like hell, a fallen angelic being 'satan' is a pagan myth falsely inserted into the scriptures! The NT teaches that everyone willingly believes in the end! there is no such thing as truly freedom of choice. Every choice we make has some influence on it. No one has ever become a Christian by a totally free choice, it was because they came under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Hi there this may help: Matthew 25:46 And they will go away to ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, but the righteous to ETERNAL LIFE. okay so let's focus on the capitalized letter mainly ETERNAL PUNISHMENT AND LIFE 1. ETERNAL Punishment - so the Greek here is (κόλασις αἰώνιος) meaning age during correction! 2. ETERNAL Life - so the Greek here is (ζωή αἰώνιος) which litteraly means ETERNAL LIFE But wait! How come eternal only applies to life? Well αἰώνιος primary has 2 meanings eternal and age during a quick googling will explain we know from scripture punishment is corrective and age long (1 Corinthians 15 28, Romans 11:32) and we know eternal life is eternal (Romans 14:11, John 3:16) Last point brother: We know as children the discipline of a father won't TAKE AWAY OUR FREE WILL! in fact if we get disciplined by our parents it will make us better not removing our FREE WILL BRO. Lastly the love of a parent doesn't restrain an evil child will it now? But it can change the child through what? Through discipline and if the child gets disciplined what happens? He will be better completing God's good pleasure in fact Universalism is where the most peaceful God of the 3 resides May god bless you with knowledge my brother 😊✝️
From the Bible to converted christians: "O Timothy, keep that which is commited to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." I TIMOTHY 6. 20, 21
If anyone has misunderstood Paul, it's Steve Chalke. The mystery given to Paul by the risen Jesus Christ was that salvation was available to anyone, both Jew and Gentile (Greek, non Jew), key word here being "available". Salvation by the faith of Christ is made available to anyone; but only those who have complete faith (trust) in Christ's atoning work on the cross are the ones who will be saved to life eternal. If something is made available to me, for example the acceptance to attend a certain university , that doesn't mean I automatically begin attending said university. There are conditions that have to be fulfilled such as finding funds to pay tuition. Paul also continually drove home the idea of salvation by grace, not through works; the idea that one does not work for or toward salvation which is an impossibility. Finally, in his letters Paul showed how Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and everything the prophets prophesied in the Old Testament; also how Christ was the fulfillment of not only the Law, but the OT priesthood, the OT kings, the OT covenant, the sacrificial system, and even the Temple. He attempted to show that all of those things were foreshadows of what (WHO) was to come and that they were no longer necessary. Methinks Mr. Chalke was reading into Paul's writings what he wished to read - and see. I haven't read his book but I wonder how much he talked about Paul's travels and his establishing of the various churches in the Acts of the Apostles. Although Paul's mission was to try and reach as many as possible as to the good news given to him personally, by the risen Jesus Christ, If you read his epistles and what Luke wrote about Paul in the Acts of the Apostles; if you "let it say what it say", I think you will see that the gospel was certainly conditional and that salvation was not ultimately for everyone. A good place to start in seeing this is Romans. God bless.
It seems the biggest issue Christian’s have with universalists is that they terribly misunderstand what we actually believe so allow me to clarify what we believe so you can actually try and disprove something other than a straw man we don’t believe hell doesn’t exist we believe hell is for a period of time with a beginning and an end and we believe that the purpose of this punishment is to correct sinners and lead them to understanding that they need Christ therefore accepting Christ and repenting of there sins of there own free will not by force we don’t believe hitler is going to be in heaven chasing Jews around we don’t disagree with the Bible nor do we think all roads lead to God only Jesus we just believe that all will turn to Christ in the end some may have to go to hell first others get to skip that stage those would be Christian’s but we believe in the end God will be all in all
Watching these two men. Who would I feel safe to have in my life? Steve. I’d like him to be the godfather of my children. I’d trust him with my granny. I wouldn’t want to be stuck on a life raft with Moore.
Faith is the SUBSTANCE of hope, and is our response to our belief in Jesus as the wisdom of God, and how we shall live in good works. And good works are the lack of evil deeds.
He ….Steve …..doesn’t allow anyone to give their view, or finish what they’re trying to say, . He interrupts like crazy. He speaks and it’s mainly listened to.
Phil Moore has a BA and Masters in Theology from Cambridge. Steve Chalke has an honourary doctorate from Staffordshire. In this conversation, it shows.
Why does Brierly keep getting Moore to define Chalkes arguments? Surely it would be much fairer to let Chalke speak for himself? We know why. Because it’s meant to be a stitch up. But it fails because of the sheer quality of Chalk’s Christlike theology and his unfeigned compassion for humanity.
Steve talks about the dangers of reading your "exclusions" into Paul while reading his on views into Paul. Not exclusions necessarily but there is a danger of taking Paul out of context about being over inclusive while reading Paul. All have the gift of salvation but not all will accept that gift and those who don't will not enjoy that gift.
Just because Paul was writing to churches does not mean he was only ever talking about churches everyone makes the context argument when someone gives a proof text that disproves your doctrine but always fail to then offer the true context
I fear Steve has become a Christian popularist, making the Gospel fit what the world wants to hear, rather than encouraging the world to follow the Gospel.
I'm afraid Steve Chalke comes over with an overpowering attitude and doesn't t allow Phil to present his perspective without continual interruption and steering the conversation on into himself again and again ....just a view from a watcher
Acts 20:29-31 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
I don’t agree with anything Steve Chalke says but I do think Phil Moore was a little bit short with Steve at times and was poking fun at Steve which was slightly unkind.. Not sure what others think
I don't think anybody made fun of him. He was called on his own words, and how he said poner thing and meant another. He is a universalist without a shred of evidence in the New Testament. I do understand what he means. But his words are one thing, and three meaning totally other. He is actually saying people will find themselves spending eternity with God whether they like it or not. Jesus will reconcile all by sheer power!!
I find it ironic that Steve came on this show to discuss and receive criticism of the content of his book. Than once the critique barely begins becomes fragile, and exceedingly defensive...
There are a lot of criticisms against Steve and his character. Fair, but that has nothing to do with the arguments. The jump from 'he was rude so he is wrong' is quite illogical. I also find it interesting the critiques of him trying to reinterpret people like Martin Luther, Aristotle, Paul, etc. These were men too, and they all shared slightly different theologies. Steve only varies slightly in the fundamentals of his theology to Phil, really just a few key things cause them to diverge. Such as, how to interpret justice and the power of love. What emerges out the other side may seem like a vast distance between the two, but it's not really so. The story logically can make sense with either. What I wanna ask then, is why did God make the Bible interpretable to this degree, where at the very least, honest and sincere men are trying to understand the truth of it, but arriving at different conclusions? God is not the author of confusion 1 Corinthians 14:33. Maybe the truth is written on our hearts? When I go to my heart, I can't make sense of perfect love torturing confused ignorant humans for all of eternity, even if they were so ignorant their evil manifested in terrible ways. There is no justice there. Finite crimes for infinite torture is not just for one. Two, Jesus taught us the heart of God, and what Jesus taught is "forgive them, for they know not what they do". Jesus gave us the answer, the hell's we create are out of our ignorance. Justice and punishment always serve to restore and to edify. This aligns with what we are taught about love. Matthew 18:22 Jesus teaches we continue to forgive, over and over. So, my challenge to everyone being rather unloving to either of these guys, consider both of these men have given their entire lives to seeking the truth of God and Jesus, and they are sharing their information and experience that they have acquired. The Bible does say to be wise, listen carefully for truth, and listen to your hearts. God's love is much more powerful than His need for vengeance.
I think Steve Chalke has come at the situation with an agenda. It seems he has some views and has tried to scoop Paul up by his feet, replant him and then say he actually is like this and supports these views. I don't think redefining Paul to meet some agendas criteria or to support something he seems so against is dishonest. This is what I think has happened here but whatever has happened in this discussion seems to be something really really polarising, there seems to be very little they agree upon. To sides it seems. I think the bible is in a state where anyone should be able to understand the main concept but also have infinite depth, I don't like this idea Steve presents where only after studying this tremendously will you find this 'hidden truth' that is actually the opposite of the current christian view. I don't think conflicting ideas are to be found if you stare at it long enough or talk about it for long enough until it warps into the thing you hope it to mean.
@@frankwhelan1715 we understand him in context. Jesus was not crucified and risen yesterday, or appeared to Paul. If he had he wouldn't be different because he is the Truth and Life. You can't just grab his Love and leave his holiness, and justice aside!! You can't just love how's he rebuked hipocrites, and leave out how he said: go and sin no more. Also how he's said he who calls his brother dum or stupid is worthy of hell!! It's all or nothing. Let's not pick and choose. He is God, not us.
I am grateful for Steve and his hard work. And for putting himself through interviews like this. I don't think he gets it all right, but he is taking the bible seriously and looking to see what Paul and Jesus really meant. God is love. Mercy triumphs over judgement. And Paul does support this. Check out Robin Parry and David Bentley Hart for more detailed analysis. Eternal torment is not biblical in my opinion.
Oh my gosh😩 Steve won’t stop talking and kept interrupting so I can’t even tell what the other guy thinks and what his points are. I almost shut this off twice. This is the third time and my head is about to split open.
I kinda wish this episode wasn't released wasn't super uplifting. I wish all Unbelievable episodes started with William saying to the guests "by the way if this conversation is not edifying this will not be released."
Great subject but somewhat spoilt by weak moderation allowing Steve ( who’s position I agree with btw ) to dominate I would estimate at 2/3rds of the allotted time. Steve, enthusiastic as you are, please respect your fellow contributor by not railroading over him
To be fair, Steve wrote the book and was there to defend his view against the challenges being brought. Phil was there to critique Steve so it does make some sense that Steve was allowed to speak more. You can hardly say Steve was given an easy ride
The eternal punishment is explicit in Paul's writing: "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thessalonians 1:9, ESV)
Ah. But what do we do with; "Jesus Christ is the saviour of all mankind, especially those believing ". Not trying to start any arguments here,Dave. But maybe you would be willing to share your opinion on this verse? I ask from a sincere heart. I am a hopeful universalist and there's plenty of scripture to support the position. But also plenty enough for those who wish to refute it.
@@spiritof6986 Jesus Christ IS the savior of all mankind. He died for the Sin of the world. He was the ONLY one capable of doing so. But does that mean everyone automatically receives salvation (eternal life) because of Christ's work on the cross? Are there NO conditions for receiving the free gift of salvation other than being born? Does not Paul teach that one has to completely trust in Christ's work on the cross in order to be saved? What about "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"? What about the fact that Paul states that it is only when we believe (trust in) Jesus' work on the cross, that God is able to take the righteousness of God and transfer it onto the believer? Why did Christ even have to die on the cross? Why wouldn't a loving God simply decide that everyone who's ever been born, no matter what sort of life they have lived, no matter whether or not they even believed in God, their creator and savior, no matter is they've totally rejected the very idea of a God, would die and go to heaven? Why even bother with a life on earth? Why not simply have all of mankind be born in heaven?
@@carolbriwn6068 Greetings from Scotland, Carol. Your questions indeed are mine as well. And despite the myriad of answers that are available, we'll only know the whole truth when we 'get there'. The one main question that stands out for me,is that of substitutionary penal atonement. Why did an innocent man have to brutally tortured and killed, that i may live. In light of the nature of our creator being that of kindness,forgiveness,love and mercy,the sacrifice makes no sense to me at all. It's abhorrent.
In the early 1990s Steve was the go to man for youth camps and inspiration for youth leaders as I was,it's very sad how his theology has gone ' progressive' and he is now amongst those who will no longer put up with sound doctrine.
I disagree with you. He has rightly grown into this paradigm of his faith. There are countless verses suggesting the victorious gospel, over and above the severely limited gospel by which billions end up in hell without any hope of reprieve. Most Christians that Jesusus is nor Saviour but only POTENTIAL Saviour only after they have said the sinner's prayer. It's almost self salvation and does not recognize the cross as the finished work of Jesus Christ.
@kevinrombouts3027 sorry,your reply doesn't read very well and it's difficult for me to grasp your objection to what I originally said, which I stand by.its always good to dig into scripture, countless verses? hmm. Steve's coming now from a position of the universalist who rejects traditional biblical understanding exegesis and hermeneutics as just being unkind,he protests he loves the word whilst always citing individuals whom he has met or counselled who want sex outside of whats plainly taught as right holy and good in scripture and uses their personal pain as justification to unpick the bible,its unfortunate you are unable to see the problem.
The reason why Moore and Brierly are vehemently opposed to all being brought together in Christ’s love is that this threatens the hegemony of the church. It’s all about control. It’s cultic. They have to have a clearly defined in-group contrasted by the out-group. And heaven forbid the two should be confused or worse, brought together by Love, “because we, the people who benefit from Christian hegemonic power, would loose our grip in this right wing politico-religious cult and we’re going to ride this one all the way to the bank.” There are only two options. One is that Moore and Brierly are entirely cynical, as I suggest. Really the only alternative is that they are completely brainwashed, which is equally alarming for the future of not just Christendom but of civilisation itself.
I am no Steve Chalke fan, but I think it was actually Phil who was antagonistic and disparaging. This is "The Big Conversations", it's not a debate, yet straight out of the gate Phil attacks Steve with some reasonably big claims and also clearly a quote that wasn't even appropriately quoted. He didn't even understand the purpose of outlining the need to only speak about the books that we know are written by Paul, but instead saw it as some kind of error. You can say what you want about his theology and scholarship, but I don't blame Steve for being defensive. Phil had an agenda to go after him from the get-go. NT Wright would have been a much better person to create meaningful and thoughtful discussion.
It was embarrassing to watch Phil. He was contemptuous. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Disagree with his opinion all you want, but don't try to humiliate the guy. Anyone can read the book and make up their own mind. I'm an atheist (ex-christian), married to a Christian. And I've learnt and always tried to remain respectable in my discussions. Phil here was not.
Steve Chalke is the one with the new claim - it makes sense that he would have to defend his claim. Steve's book opposes key portions of widely held church eschatology. If you think Phil is being antagonistic, isn't Steve the one that interrupts the most and seems hesitant to wait his turn to respond? Steve certainly spent the most time talking. Everyone in the discussion has an agenda - no one is coming to the discussion as a blank slate. Phil is promoting a book and Steve has read the book. NT Wright would certainly be a good discussion partner. Its plain that Tom also disagrees with Steve and that Tom's/Phil's view is more widely-held view among the public and scholars.
@@clay1678 that's fine. But there is a respectful tone that can be taken. Just bring up the claims and argue against them. Don't need to rubbish his books cover and stuff like that for cheap shots. I am not sure Steve does himself any favours trying to present his work as acceptable to conservative Christians though. He should just come straight out that he is a liberal Christian. I suspect his background and fellow Christians make him feel embarrassed to admit it so freely.
@@1000whispering I think you make a good point - both men in this discussion were at times unfair to their discussion partner. The bit with the cover was a good example. Steve also did this by continued insinuations that Phil needed to go study more. However, it was more congenial than most debates I've seen so I think its fair to give both men some credit as well. I see why Steve presents his opinion the way he does - he is someone with scholarly credentials who is presenting a fairly radical idea about a key church doctrine. He sees his idea as correct and that it can be argued for outside of any appeal to a conservative or liberal disposition. And I agree with him that his approach is the correct one if he feels convicted in the truth of his claim. But in doing so he has to address the reasoning for going against the common view as held by modern and classical scholars.
I take Phil Moore's side. The seems to have a better argument. Steve is desperately wanting to get rid of the things that bother him instead of wrestling with what is called for in Paul's writings.
It's very unfortunate that the top apologetics channels (Unbelievable, Capturing Christianity, Inspiring Philosophy etc) have utterly failed to engage the strongest and most persuasive proponents of Christ-centered/Christ-mediated universalism-- see the second edition of Tom Talbott's book on universalism ("Inescapable Love of God"), or Talbott's contributions to the 2003 volume "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate" (edited by Parry and Partridge), or Robin Parry's book "The Evangelical Universalist" (under pen name Gregory MacDonald), or Reitan and Kronen's 2011 book "God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism." These provide among the best philosophical and Biblical arguments for Christ-centered universalism.
What is the role of free will in Steve's eschatology? If all of our choices lead to the same end doesn't that remove any ultimate meaning? I think Steve has taken some small points around misunderstanding Paul and expanded that so far that contradicts large parts of scripture.
I haven't read any of Steve's stuff yet, but I take a very similar stance to him on pretty much everything he said (and he leaves much open, rightfully so). But some believe in a period of 'hell' that is not eternal, but instead maybe a more intense and direct exposure to the reality of sin and de-humanization. This could even be interpreted in the idea of the 'fire of God's love', kind of in line with C.S. Lewis' thought that 'even heaven would be hell to someone who wants to reject God'... Believers in Christ will avoid this period of 'condemnation' (be careful with words though..) and 'hell'. A universalist here would then simply believe that everyone (their conscious self, I guess, if it happens after physical death, according to this view..) eventually does accept Christ by a 'choice' as we could ever perceive it as such. So there is room for free will there in the realm of how we experience the consequences of our sin and how we experience God's love, exemplified in Christ. But ultimately the idea of free will and God's total sovereignty and omnipotence will always be at odds with each other, no matter the theology.. most Christians just bury it deeper than they can think about it, but I don't think it can ever go away. It's a divine paradox.
Thank you Steve Chalke for talking about legitimate scholarship and its breadth, rather than narrow theological interpretations of certain wings of Christian thinking. Although he interrupts a little too much, I'm glad he discussed theology. Phil Moore seems to be attacking Steve as a person which isn't what this specific platform is made for.
Yes Phil was angry and attacking. Funny thing is that Phil has holed up in a church and Steve has actually been helping people and doing the work of Jesus to the masses - Steve is the hands and feet.
@@carolbriwn6068 because he understands that even though there are 150 verses that prove what he believes Christian’s will manage to explain every single one of them away scripture poker is a game with no ending this argument is more about translation and interpretation of the scriptures if your looking for hell you’ll find it if your looking for annihilationism you’ll find that too and if your looking for universal reconciliation you’ll find that so it becomes about what’s your view of God who do you believe that he is a torturer or a destroyer or a savior
Any book that annoys Moore this much must be good. So I’ve just gone online and bought it. Really looking forward to to a bit of decent healthy Christlike theology. Not this narrow hell and damnation mediaeval nightmare Moore is advocating
I wonder if Jesus was a universalist when he included prostitutes sinners, witches, politician, crooks and gentiles in his message of salvation, I think the ultimate message of the gospel is love without love the gospel its just a philosophy.
Yes. Jesus desired for all to be saved. His sacrifice obviously was enough for all to be saved. But unless we do away with All of the Old and New testament, repentance is the only requisite! Abandon sin, turn 180° to Jesus, pick up your cross and follow Him. The whole preaching of John the baptizer and of Jesus was " repent" abandon sin. It was not " don't worry everything you do doesn't matter" " continue in sin" " the Bible knew nothing about adult consent marriages" and so on. So. Do read the NTestament for yourself. You can even read the original language for yourself. It will be clear if you ask them Holy Spirit, he'll guide you
Jesus was a universalist when he died for all of Mankind, when he died for all the sins of Mankind. And he died because of his love for all of Mankind. But in order for someone to be saved, one has to trust in (completely) the work that Christ did on the cross. Salvation is a gift in as much as one does not have to work for it. So "what must I do to be saved?" Believe! That's the condition. The one and only condition. Paul made this very clear in ALL of his epistles.
Steve Chalk talking about how he wants a conversation by talking over other people constantly. Steve's speaking over Phil Moore constantly and not letting anyone else talk or give their opinion. A very disappointing debate, purely due to Steve not allowing his opposition to speak.
Around 19:00 - - 20:00 is quite important for a westernal church member. Although Steve Chalk 's style is impatient his point is crucial. I grown up in evangelical churches where the "Jewish understanding " was basic. And the eastern way of thinking is inevitable for the right thinking about "works" in Paul's dictionary. The modern Bible editions are filled with cultural mistranslations.
Steve's comment that Paul has had more effect on the world than Christianity (my understanding, not quoted verbatim) caused my alarm bells to ring on Steve's stance. Then that we have to take on world thinking .... What? After watching the last debate and then this one, it seems that it doesn't matter what he says as long as he keeps the mic.
Blew me away when Phil said to Steve, "That preacher was you!" Tragic how far Steve has strayed from the truth of the gospel. Truly a spiritually blind man.
I wouldn't say he has strayed. Rather I would say his perspective changed based on his own research and mature understanding. You can clearly see the love of Christ in him. Even if you believe he is wrong about eternal punishment and how God views sin, he has it right 100 percent on God's love which to me is far more important. If it is true that God excludes people that choose not to believe in him, they wouldn't be swayed by God's love anyway. And those that come to God out of fear of punishment rather than love for God, as Phil claims to have (which listening to him speak the one thing that has keep him in Christ is God's love), are not establishing a right relationship anyway and are not true lovers of God.
@@mountbrocken Very well said, Robert. You and I both recognize the "voice" that we are hearing. Steve Chalke has the "Love" in Theology at the top of the list where it belongs. Some of these other folks fancy themselves as having all their doctrinal ducks in nice neat row; but have not Love, which is the chiefest, and compound their error via the accusing others of "not being Christian", they themselves having nothing to offer but agony or ashes, despite what they may or may not know. Yet somehow they take it upon themselves to deem who is what, when it is the jurisdiction of Lord Jesus. They transgress the Saviour of All by naysaying He Saves All, lusting for revenge through the vicarious vengeance of God, yet not understanding what "Judgement" is. The Carnal Christian says, "You are not Christian" to those who believe differently than they, thereby failing to see Christ in "The Other".
@@stevenfrasier5718 I think that they have been so inundated with the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, as per SOME passages in the Bible which anthropomorphize God, and as such find Steve's hermeneutical analysis of scripture as heretical when in fact it is merely an extension of what we see IN Jesus. I just wish there were more Steve Chalke's around here ;)
The reason Brierly and Moore argue against this is because of control the church looses control and authority as soon as we recognise that God loves everything and everyone and that he brings all together in that love.
Another thought. This clash is a an interesting example of the "essay thinking" VS Hebrew "double decker" or "flipside" approach.* Phil isn't able to withdraw himself from showing "elegant - arrogant ignorance" on briton way.. The rethinking of the Theology doesn't mean unbelief. The arguing with an enthusiastic person does not mean despising the individual WHO at least tried the hardest way. I'm not the fan of the universalism at all but, being pro musician, I'm fan of the "urtext" thinking. The WAY of the thinking is important to the biblical faith - after all it should not be the way of the universalism. *"Pistis Cristos" really HAS a two directional MESSAGE. Paul has Hebrew thinking. He often uses this kind of tools. It was not mentioned in this discuss as I remember...
My goodness am I the only one who thinks that Steve Chalke COMPLETELY over talked Phil Moore? My goodness, this was not a discussion everytime Phil would begin laying down the groundwork of his argument or response Steve would nose dive in! I believe Phil had the ability to press Steve more however Steve hijacked the conversation by continuous interruption and dodgy 21st Century liberalistic responses.
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 Yep Always was judgemental of the fuckwit bigots element in so called professed Christians Personal never believed in a judgement day but if there is will be sitting in front to listen to yours!
This, Michael, is Chalke's well-practised weapon; talk, interrupt, ask a question, make a quick comment which turns into a mini sermon, then laughter to break the flow of the conversation, then another quick comment, then a point of order, then an attempt to correct an alleged misunderstanding, then a correction...check it out, again. This is the old devil in disguise.
Steve Chalke totally let himself down here. His behaviour was disgraceful. He was determined from the beginning never to let Phil Moore complete a sentence, and did you notice how whenever Moore tried to explain any of the errors in the book, Chalke always tries to deflect by invoking Nazis, Roman dictators and Apartheid? His behaviour was like a guilty school child trying to avoid the other children telling their side of the story. He comes across as somebody who has totally lost the plot, and yet is trying to deny it.
Phil was making false accusations and ignoring Steve's reasonable explanations. He kept re-mentioning things that Steve had already explained. Steve is the one who wrote the book and is the one putting himself on the line here. Phil constantly used petty statements to attack and Steve wouldn't stand for it. So Steve has to go on and on to defend himself. No grace whatsoever shown by Phil. He had nothing to lose here and risked nothing, but rather came only to destroy. If it's true that the words used to write the Bible had different meanings that we thought they had, then it's very important. That is Steve's, Tom Wright's, and others' main point.
It’s tempting to change the original, clear, message of the gospel to a version that brings comfort to one’s own hopes or biases. As the years have gone by Mr. Chalke has given into this. What he is trying to pass off as corrections of the understandings of Paul’s teachings are the very thing that has moved him away from the true meaning. He should simply be a critic of wrong methods churches are using. But instead he went to the message. The problem is not the message. Let it stand clear, and let it ring true. This is the only job of the faithful preacher.
Of course! But if you reject God's love, there his justice. Or do you forget the price he paid. Why did Jesus need to die if sins were not condemning us in the end? If you cannot choose to reject God at the end.... Why suffer persecution and why preach the Gospel?
All the people on here who are so aggressive against Steve Chalke should read “Finding God in the waves” by Mike McHargue. I have been ardently fundamentalist evangelical in my doctrine for many years but was forced to be more humble debating with very intelligent atheists in a very logical engineering profession. I know God is real and have even seen an angel with my own eyes, but the harmonisation of theology and science is no way simple and the implications of the theory of evolution would shake many of the self assured wannabe apologists if they weren’t living in denial. I still honour the apostle Paul and all his writings, but he was still a citizen of the culture and the knowledge of his time (which makes his letters all the more amazing in my opinion and his definition of love in 1Corinthians 13 is enough to prove God inspired him in itself)
The most important part of this was Steve's attempt to explain the 2 greek words most often translated as "eternal punishment", without which I doubt the massive teaching of eternal hell and torture would be so widely believed in. Every literal translation I know of translate this as "age-enduring" or "age lasting", meaning the greek word does not demand that it be eternal, although if hell was elsewhere described as eternal, the term would allow for that. It is just not a limiting phrase. If there were somewhere else that this was described as eternal then it would leave for that interpretation, but as far as I can find there is no where in the entire Bible that describes afterlife judgement as "everlasting", and many places which describe all eventually being converted. Als, as Steve points out, the word "Kolasan" in the greek actually means "correction" or "pruning", so it also leads to the idea of a temporary time of heavy persuasion to convert the hardened heart of sinful souls. Which all reflects a God who is Love, not an eternally wrathful tormentor, thank God, praise God, Halleluia!
Which places describe everybody being saved?
That is correct. God is love and he will in the end right ALL wrong and restore his entire creation which includes ALL beings human, divine, and animal.
@@claudiaperfetti7694 "God had bound all in disobedience, that he may have mercy on all" "this is the judgement of the world, now the prince of the world will be cast out, and when I am lifted up I will drag all men to me" "every knee shall bow confessing Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the God the father" "God wills everyone to come to full knowledge of the truth" "the son of man has come to save what is lost" "so in Adam all die, so too in Christ all will be made alive"
@@carakerr4081
Therefore Jesus died for nothing and the whole new testament is based on a lie😮
@@harrydaniels1942 Amen !
I’ve only recently given my life to Christ. I’ve been researching Christianity for 10 years. I personally found this really interesting. Thanks for being willing to have this conversation. God bless
Welcome to the Kingdom!
20july1944 thanks!
L C All I’d say is learn to discern truth as there are false teachers who twist scripture. Just read your Bible in plain English. It will make sense as it is without adding or taking away from it.
Devonbiker thanks! That’s what I’m trying to do 🥰. I really enjoy listening to everyone’s perspective though.
@@devonbiker neither of them would advocate for reading it in plain English. Know the context it was being written in and to whom it was written otherwise you'll see what isn't there as you'll have bias
I must say, Steve’s charity work speaks for itself.
“By their fruits you shall know them”
I agree with Phil that the saving faith involves both the faithfulness of Christ and our faith in who Christ claimed he is.
@Jim of course we are warned against legalism in the New Testament. Legalism is salvation by works. But how does that in any way negate or qualify the fact that "saving faith involved both the faithfulness of Christ and our faith in [Christ]"? Those are two completely different categories.
Amen
Amen, it’s like falling off a cruise liner and starting to drown but then Jesus throws us the life aid.. We grab the life aid and are saved, yes we had to respond by grabbing the lifeaid but when we get on the boat and have been saved from drowning we don’t boast about ourselves and say it was us who saved ourselves by grabbing the life aid.. Of course it wasn’t! We boast about and praise the one who threw us the lifeaid in the first place. Our arbitrary ‘work’ of grabbing the life aid is just the response to the saving action already done.
Phil Moore agrees with that as well.
@@NoContextRDH I'd say it was more like falling off the liner, drowning and dying. Then Jesus scoops us up out of the sea and brings us back to life.
Felt sorry for Justin in this one. Steve can't sit quietly, he's too defensive for a constructive discussion to take place.
It's not just Justin who misses out... I'd like to have heard more from Phil, but Steve kept cutting him off. His poor discipline let the conversation down sadly.
@@Hellyers Phil came off a little too aggressive, in spots but Steve was definitely defensive of his shaky position.
@@hazratmuhazmat8831 Phil barely got a word in...
It's not a good debate when one of the parties don't let the other finish talking.
I had ENOUGH of Steve Chalke (no disrespect intended) a YEAR ago, during the debate on "Does The Bible Contain Errors." (Somewhere around that time, anyway.)
I wonder how many people commenting stayed to the end where Phil reveals he became a Christian twenty odd years earlier at a talk given by Steve! My point is, God is bigger than our divisions. Let us disagree but always with gentleness and love, and in unity.
“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Proverbs 16:25
Perfect vers man. nice.
_A man has joy in an apt answer, And how delightful is a timely word!_ Proverbs 15:23
This can be applied in too many unfortunately…
Why does everyone who quotes this verse think it applies to others but not him/herself?
David Dibben do you agree though that someone has to be right? And one way has to be right and the other wrong? Why are we so afraid to judge between truth and falsehood?
@@NoContextRDH By their fruit you shall know them. If they are kind and loving. That's a way we can know. Quite often the argument is not about truth and falsehood. It is about my interpretation versus your interpretation.
"Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him."
Proverbs 29:20 ESV
perhaps look in the mirror?
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 everyday. That's why I need Jesus.
I think it was meant to be a kind of unfair set up where Justin Poshtwit was going to stitch up Steve snd feed him to Moore. But the contrast in the quality of Steve and his well educated arguments from a scholastic base, rather than a narrow church hegemony, motivated from a deep compassion for people just shines out.
Steve wouldn’t let the other guy speak. So frustrating.
I thought the opposite. Phil didn't let Steve talk ...
@@billtimmons7071 Yes. Phil just regards Steve with suspicion. I think Phil has been indoctrinated rather than arrived at his conclusions by deep thought. Steve seems to have broken free from his indoctrinated position, and has genuinely engaged with thought and reason and scholarship. Steve needs to be more confident...what he says is hopeful and good news. He doesn't need to fear the indoctrinated mob.
He had to, else his arguments would have been exposed.
@@DIBBY40 Chalke doesn't have arguments, he has stories with which he undermines the texts. Steve has left the faith.
@@martinploughboy988
Steve has returned to the ORIGINAL faith.
Hardly a debate. More like a monologue. Justin let the audience down here I'm afraid. He needed to take control.
Christian Universalism doesn't believe that "all paths lead to God" nor that God will save a person against that person's will. God shall win that person over to Himself eventually because He wills to do so and He is all wise and all powerful and is love.
Steve, I get you man and I understand your heart. Love your theology. God bless you. From The Rock Ministry Malaysia. "Christ is the reconcilor of all"
That's not the only frase in the NT. Do you want to avoid persecution? You may by the way. But do read the New Testament. All of it.
@Sharon Suga Are you a Universalist/Restorationist of all people; do you believe in this false teaching, Sharon?
Agreed. LOVED IT!
Yes and amen brother!
Steven Chalke is right about scholars views on the letters of Paul.
he's not even taking a hard 'right' or 'wrong' stance. Phil constantly mis-characterized him and forced this debate into a mess, because had to constantly defend against false accusations. But, yeah, he's way more in line than Phil. You gotta try to get in ALL the evidence, and it's very hard.
Great someone who has at least done some research and is not scared of scholarship!
@@ForeFrontosaso you’re telling me heretical opinion exists about the word of God? Wow I never knew that.
@@ForeFrontosa
But his exact stance is irrelevant because he still holds that *some* of Paul's letters were not written by him.
Phil's point works just as well if Steve says three of Paul's letters are non-genuine as if he's talking about six.
And thank you Phil Moore I appreciate your stance. Steve”s view is very dangerous and the way you pointed it out is amazing. I dont read much but do listen to a lot of doctrine. GOD Bless
Try reading the Bible - Paul was a bigoted, misogynist
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 - for someone who thinks that it's "all fiction anyway" (your words), you seem to be taking it quite seriously.
Well, you should read more then and do your best to search the scriptures to see if what people are saying is actually found there.
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 O dear!
Maybe that's why he has so many women helpers, workers with him in the Lord, and why he loved the Phillipian's church so much
@@28102650 yes as a work of fiction. I love reading the classics. So for me parts of the bible have literary merit .
What a cracking good discussion,a real corker. I normally listen on the radio on a Saturday afternoon but as I've got to go out tomorrow I thought I'd watch the TH-cam version instead and I'm so glad I did. Things got impassioned but stayed civilized as always under Justin's care. This was SO interesting and a bit erudite.
Great discussion of topic but constant interruption by Steve Chalke was really frustrating .
Justin Brierley is the most diplomatic debate mediator in the history of radio!
Subtextually, I perceive that Moore and the Moderator "teams up" on Chalke like two bullies using intimidation; so in effect Chalke is PUT on the defensive, as anyone in such a situation would be. I've watched many uploads and have noticed the subtle yet tell-tale signs of anti-Chalke bias in the Moderator. Then, many of Chalke's detractors holds this against him because they don't want others to really hear the actual content of what he's telling us. If anything, Steve Chalke should be commended for his patience, tolerance and for having a sense of humor.
Absolutely Steve is the real Christ like of the three.
Took the words out of my mouth. I sensed it was meant to be a stitch up by Justin Brierly. But the sheer quality of chalk shone out despite the despicable and unchristian way he was treated
@@markrichter2053
Justin quite clearly disagrees with Chalke; but he does try to do his best to be unbiased. Everyone is human, though.
@@stevenfrasier5718
Too right. They’re a couple of bleeping bleepers. Chalk was a bleeding hero just for maintaining his composure. I hope a lot of undecided people noticed the moral contrast between Chalk’s genuine humanity the pseud-moralism and dogmatic religious bigotry of the other two.
Interesting how by in large, when Steve talks the room is quite. When anyone else talks Steve is going "hm hm hm hm hm hm". You think that's any indicator of his willingness to dialogue?
Steve definitely comes across as defensive - perhaps some of it is his personality and some of it is a genuine feeling that he doesn't have the majority of scholars or leaders on his side. I think Phil makes a strong case that Steve has some inconsistencies in his logic around Martin Luther's translation and then its application as Universalism.
I also got the same impression as others… That Steve was a bit insufferable, however I do wonder if it’s different when you are trying to defend a book that you’ve written versus someone else who has not written the book trying to criticize it?
(James 1:19) 'Everyone should be quick to listen, and slow to speak."
@@euged As an author, though of fiction, I think he interupts more because this feels so personal to him, like he has to defend his own identity. I can understand that.
He's a preacher.. they like talking. lol
I'm shocked at the negativity towards Steve here! Here are some points about why I think this discussion went the way it did:
6:54 - Phil somehow suggests that Steve is not able to think Paul is brilliant, while at the same time making a statement that most scholars have questions about 6 of the books. These ideas are not exclusive and is the first of some senseless attacks that Steve is left having to defend against.
7:00 - Phil falsely claims that Steve says he doesn't believe Paul wrote 6 of the books. Again Steve has to defend himself against this stupid minor point, wasting time. They end up checking it and it turns out that indeed Steve was commenting on the general consensus of scholars, and it was about 3 of the books, not 6. Phil was way off on his accusation, on both the personal and detail level. Note how Steve addresses this harsh accusation by laughing it off with 'actually i just read that this morning!!' Very gracious response to a pointless attack.
9:25 - Phil starts talking about sources and then questions footnotes. Steve says there are footnotes and besides, he just calls people to use Google to supplement the references that excessive (for a popular level book) footnotes would give. Phil ignores what Steve is actually saying and answers with a highbrow "I don't do my theology on Google, Steve". Steve was only suggesting using google as a resource to verify any perceived missing references. Again Steve let's it rest and just says 'well maybe you should' with a smile.. again, pointless and errant attack countered with a defence and eventual smile.
10:05 - Phil says 'what strikes me MOST' is that it's not endorsed by NT Wright... that was the MOST striking thing?? For all of the commenters talking about Phil's education, what degree did he require to make that observation?? The point is that he's not even interested in a discussion, just endless petty and meaningless attacks, forcing Steve to have to defend.
12:00- Phil isn't totally accurate about NT Wright. Tom seems pretty non-committal on his stance as Paul the author of the pastorals, he almost never uses them in his work (ie: the public discussion). Steve again has to correct on a mundane point, pleading him to think of it as 'serious scholarship'.
16:00 - Phil is not hearing (not interested in listening) the larger point Steve is making, using Hebrews and Origen as an example.
22:30 - This is really a tough one for me. Phil humiliates Steve on a meaningless point about how his name is very visible on his book, claiming that it's 'fascinating'. At 22:45 you can get a glimpse that Steve was definitely embarrassed and hurt by it. But he laughs it off. To be honest, I think Phil was trying to just take a playful jab here (especially after Steve impulsively held up the book and said 'buy it'), and it wasn't intended to be as mean as it came out. But still, it's another example of the type of stuff Steve had to constantly defend against.
Phil continues throughout the discussion to categorize the book as 'weakest chapter', 'second weakest chapter', etc... constantly prodding Steve, that's very unfair and harsh.
He also keeps bringing up the '6 out of 13 books' bit that he doesn't even realize that he was shown to be wrong about that earlier... Steve has to repeat his reasoning numerous times, desperately trying to get Phil to listen. His reason is that he wanted to avoid conflict and so will only focus on 7 of the books to give examples of weaponization. In fact, he could have used the other 6 books to find even more examples! If Phil understood the point here, he would realize that he's actually making Steve's case stronger. Listen carefully and properly to Steve's rationale and think it through...
I could go on and the discussion does open up a bit afterwards. Steve goes more on the offensive later for sure, but he's the one who is under the microscope with his book, not Phil. So obviously he's going to talk more. Plus he loves to share his views with passion, that's his personality.
I greatly enjoyed the energy in this debate. I can't blame Steve for his rant at the very end, he was mistreated the whole talk. And he's right about the dangers of reading the Bible too shallowly.
Kevin Bauer : Thank you for your kind, thoughtful and discerning analysis. Quite accurate and helpful.
Thankyou, you have put into words exactly what I was thinking, but am not as articulate as you. X
-The point of contrast of Paul's brilliance is to say that Chalke seemed to be saying the Pauline letters are worth reading because Paul was a genius; but this is undermined if the genius Paul didn't write all of them.
-Tom Wright undoubtedly thinks Paul wrote the Pastorals. He wrote a book about the Pastorals and talks about Paul all the time in it, and how Paul's attitude in the pastorals links to his attitude in e.g. Philippians.
-How many of the Pauline books Steve thinks Paul wrote is more or less irrelevant; because it's clear he doesn't believe all 13-14 of them were. If he did, he would say so; and not just pick out one of the "disputed" books as one Paul wrote. The one thing you can say to his credit on this matter was that he does not explicitly teach this in his book (although the way he frames it is clearly meant to bring people to that conclusion).
Phil, you're great guy... You represent a good Christian debater... Poised, gracious and with facts and logic.
Let's learn this...more debates please!
This conversation was actually intolerable,
Cr
I think Steve was trying to bully Phil a little but Phil wasn't having it. Paul will always be controversial as even the Apostle Peter said there are things he wrote that are hard to understand.
Trivial differences but who knows why unless we can ask Paul or Luke. The question is did Paul have a real experience and this we can confirm unequivocally yes. Paul was a changed man after his encounter. He was a monotheistic Jew who worshipped and taught Jesus was God and was beheaded for it. Wow. Something happened whether or not some bystanders heard, saw or fell down or not
41:13 - Steve Chalke reveals he’s a Christian Universalist
1:02:11 - Phil Moore says Steve Chalke preached the message that led to his salvation
A utube video titled 'Universalism in St Paul' is well worth watching IMO
When people get as defensively aggressive as Steve Chalke, constantly talking over the other person, it makes me think that they know they are pushing a different agenda to the one they are claiming to push. Justin usually does a great job but in this case failed to shut Steve up and let Phil speak sufficiently. Steve Chalke comes across as someone who is trying to reinterpret/change Christianity to fit with his social justice warrior world view. As Phil says, he reads stuff into Paul that just isn't there in order to try and achieve this. However, it's too late now; the Church of England certainly (but also most other mainstream denominations in the UK) has been changing itself to fit with secular society for so long now that I struggle to take it seriously as a religion any more. It's a nice middle-class (mostly) guilt-reliever (using going to church as an excuse to behave in a secular fashion for the other 95% of the time) and virtue-signaller (let's take up every social justice cause going). Yet, even aligning itself with and following slavishly the changing secular culture of the day, Christianity is, sadly, of insufficient societal relevance in the UK nowadays for the C of E to justify being the 'established' church of the country or for Bishops (or any other religious representative) to be in the House of Lords. You only have to look at the census surveys to see how few people now say they are religious or even believe in God to see that the game is up for Christianity as a meaningful influencer on society. What a sad and sorry state of affairs.
Spot on!
I agree with you Steve Cass ;-)
I agree with you Steve. I also got hurts & wounds by the church but also have a heavenly patient Father who tenderly teaches me not to be a harsh agitator of the justice. Mean talk comes from the heart of suffering & religious position only masks the case.
But I also projected many things by this sick source. Now I fight to keep in focus the spiritual heavenly domain. Paul's word need cautious approach. They contains both cultural and timeless statements. Apostle Peter warned us not to despise or misinterpret them!
To be fair I think Steve was unmanageable and somewhat embarrassing, even if you espouse his views. Was surprised he was invited on.
Steve is an intellectual and finds it difficult to exercise patience with people who are programmed by millennia of christian doctrine.
Is it just me, or does Steve get upset because he feels he is being judged about his view of the gospel, after going on and on about Luther and judging his view of the gospel? Maybe I missed something.
Missed how dishonest and immoral Phil was!
Good point
@@shonagraham2752 sorry, in what sense? What did he say that was immoral?
@@cmoneygiles They think we're all quite inmoral because we believe sins are specific, we have to repent and flee sin, and all the rest of the Gospel of the New Testament. Basically if we don't agree with their view, we're the worst of creatures,
Could you do a similar topic with Richard Rohr? Hes an oddly popular guy, and there is a lot of debate about his writings and church history. I would like to see someone formally challenge his views and him respond to them.
I don't believe you can sit down a false teacher and expect a good debate. It's hopeless, you see, when you start by saying you mean the opposite of what you yourself say... What can you expect from a" conversation". They think any trick is valid to make them words mean whatever is necessary! As long as it works, and you agree with them.
Why don't we all just make it up as we go along like Steve does? According to him we've pretty much misunderstood everything anyway. Just start your own religion Steve.
Graham Williams
That’s the problem with liberal churches. They are run by people who think they are God and who are fighting a losing battle finding enough people who are willing to worship them.
Graham Williams he’s so lost it’s untrue. God help him.
@@danjones9999 Try using logic ....
there is a lot of money to be had in that... write a book.,... put your on it in big bold letter... its genuinely a good idea.
I grew up in this “universalist” ideology. Then I read the scriptures and challenged my presuppositions. I think the fundamental assumption is what Steve talks about around the 1hr:13m mark: that love ultimately transforms everyone. This view eliminates human freedom and, in my view, requires a new understanding of the fall of Satan and the fall of mankind. Love did not keep Satan from rebellion and it also didn’t keep Adam and Eve from it. I truly hope Universalism is true, but I can’t get behind the emotional arguments and lack of scriptural support.
This may help:
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”
1 John 2:2 (NIV)
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Romans 6:10
For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
2 Corinthians 5:15
He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.
Romans 5:6
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
John 4:42
Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world (kosmos).
1 John 4:14
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world (kosmos).
1 Timothy 4:9-11
9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. 10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 11 These things command and teach.
John 12:32-33 (NIV)
32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
1 Corinthians 15:22-23a
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order…
1 Timothy 2:3-6 (KJV)
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have (thelo) all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Ephesians 1:9-10
9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him.
Isaiah 25:7-8
7 And He will destroy on this mountain The surface of the covering cast over all people, And the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death forever, And the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces; The rebuke of His people He will take away from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken.
Romans 5:18-19
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many (all) were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many (all) will be made righteous.
You'll be troubled by this christian universalism of course! Why all the fuss then if there's no problem with sin.
@@claudiaperfetti7694 Why focus on sin when the NT teaches all sin has been dealt with once for all time!
There is no evidence in scripture for any rebellion in heaven! Just like hell, a fallen angelic being 'satan' is a pagan myth falsely inserted into the scriptures! The NT teaches that everyone willingly believes in the end! there is no such thing as truly freedom of choice. Every choice we make has some influence on it. No one has ever become a Christian by a totally free choice, it was because they came under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Hi there this may help:
Matthew 25:46
And they will go away to ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, but the righteous to ETERNAL LIFE.
okay so let's focus on the capitalized letter mainly ETERNAL PUNISHMENT AND LIFE
1. ETERNAL Punishment - so the Greek here is (κόλασις αἰώνιος) meaning age during correction!
2. ETERNAL Life - so the Greek here is (ζωή αἰώνιος) which litteraly means ETERNAL LIFE
But wait! How come eternal only applies to life? Well αἰώνιος primary has 2 meanings eternal and age during a quick googling will explain we know from scripture punishment is corrective and age long
(1 Corinthians 15 28, Romans 11:32) and we know eternal life is eternal (Romans 14:11, John 3:16)
Last point brother:
We know as children the discipline of a father won't TAKE AWAY OUR FREE WILL! in fact if we get disciplined by our parents it will make us better not removing our FREE WILL BRO.
Lastly the love of a parent doesn't restrain an evil child will it now? But it can change the child through what? Through discipline and if the child gets disciplined what happens? He will be better completing God's good pleasure in fact Universalism is where the most peaceful God of the 3 resides
May god bless you with knowledge my brother 😊✝️
From the Bible to converted christians:
"O Timothy, keep that which is commited to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
Grace be with thee.
Amen."
I TIMOTHY 6. 20, 21
If anyone has misunderstood Paul, it's Steve Chalke. The mystery given to Paul by the risen Jesus Christ was that salvation was available to anyone, both Jew and Gentile (Greek, non Jew), key word here being "available". Salvation by the faith of Christ is made available to anyone; but only those who have complete faith (trust) in Christ's atoning work on the cross are the ones who will be saved to life eternal. If something is made available to me, for example the acceptance to attend a certain university , that doesn't mean I automatically begin attending said university. There are conditions that have to be fulfilled such as finding funds to pay tuition. Paul also continually drove home the idea of salvation by grace, not through works; the idea that one does not work for or toward salvation which is an impossibility. Finally, in his letters Paul showed how Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and everything the prophets prophesied in the Old Testament; also how Christ was the fulfillment of not only the Law, but the OT priesthood, the OT kings, the OT covenant, the sacrificial system, and even the Temple. He attempted to show that all of those things were foreshadows of what (WHO) was to come and that they were no longer necessary. Methinks Mr. Chalke was reading into Paul's writings what he wished to read - and see. I haven't read his book but I wonder how much he talked about Paul's travels and his establishing of the various churches in the Acts of the Apostles. Although Paul's mission was to try and reach as many as possible as to the good news given to him personally, by the risen Jesus Christ, If you read his epistles and what Luke wrote about Paul in the Acts of the Apostles; if you "let it say what it say", I think you will see that the gospel was certainly conditional and that salvation was not ultimately for everyone. A good place to start in seeing this is Romans. God bless.
It seems the biggest issue Christian’s have with universalists is that they terribly misunderstand what we actually believe so allow me to clarify what we believe so you can actually try and disprove something other than a straw man we don’t believe hell doesn’t exist we believe hell is for a period of time with a beginning and an end and we believe that the purpose of this punishment is to correct sinners and lead them to understanding that they need Christ therefore accepting Christ and repenting of there sins of there own free will not by force we don’t believe hitler is going to be in heaven chasing Jews around we don’t disagree with the Bible nor do we think all roads lead to God only Jesus we just believe that all will turn to Christ in the end some may have to go to hell first others get to skip that stage those would be Christian’s but we believe in the end God will be all in all
So what is your expertise?
Watching these two men. Who would I feel safe to have in my life? Steve. I’d like him to be the godfather of my children. I’d trust him with my granny. I wouldn’t want to be stuck on a life raft with Moore.
The only thing I have ever disliked about this channel is Steve Chalke.
I agree
I disagree, I really enjoy his objective views, at least he is an intellectual
Incredible. I’m blown away by the sheer tragic foolishness of Moore
Does Steve EVER let people have their say??
Steve Chalke is wise in his own eyes.
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.
True
and mine! He thinks!
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 Sure he thinks, pity it deviates from what Paul is saying, and playing into the hands of contemporary culture.
Steve is wise - period!
Faith is the SUBSTANCE of hope, and is our response to our belief in Jesus as the wisdom of God, and how we shall live in good works. And good works are the lack of evil deeds.
He ….Steve …..doesn’t allow anyone to give their view, or finish what they’re trying to say, . He interrupts like crazy. He speaks and it’s mainly listened to.
Messy like life, erroneous like life even frustrating at times. But some exquisite moments.. like life.
Phil Moore has a BA and Masters in Theology from Cambridge. Steve Chalke has an honourary doctorate from Staffordshire. In this conversation, it shows.
Ok. That will explain some.
Why does Brierly keep getting Moore to define Chalkes arguments? Surely it would be much fairer to let Chalke speak for himself? We know why. Because it’s meant to be a stitch up. But it fails because of the sheer quality of Chalk’s Christlike theology and his unfeigned compassion for humanity.
I have never smiled and laughed during a theological debate as much as I did when listening to this as a podcast. I felt sorry for Justin
Haha he’s a trooper!
Milton Friedman said: the greatest harm of all is done by people who are absolutely persuaded by the superiority n the morals of their intentions.
Steve talks about the dangers of reading your "exclusions" into Paul while reading his on views into Paul. Not exclusions necessarily but there is a danger of taking Paul out of context about being over inclusive while reading Paul. All have the gift of salvation but not all will accept that gift and those who don't will not enjoy that gift.
Just because Paul was writing to churches does not mean he was only ever talking about churches everyone makes the context argument when someone gives a proof text that disproves your doctrine but always fail to then offer the true context
The problem is that he didn't give proof text that contradicts the scriptures, not just "my doctrine" but scriptures.
Justin - please step up to the mark and MODERATE!
I fear Steve has become a Christian popularist, making the Gospel fit what the world wants to hear, rather than encouraging the world to follow the Gospel.
Yes, you "fear".
I'm afraid Steve Chalke comes over with an overpowering attitude and doesn't t allow Phil to present his perspective without continual interruption and steering the conversation on into himself again and again ....just a view from a watcher
Steve was so ahead of himself to respond that he wasn't really listening to Phil...or Paul, it seems.
Good craic
Because he has more sensible things to say than either Phil or Paul.
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 Wuuuut.
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 Oh my!
Thank you for uploading! Loving it !
Well done Phil Moore for your clarity, humour and patience.
Acts 20:29-31 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
I don’t agree with anything Steve Chalke says but I do think Phil Moore was a little bit short with Steve at times and was poking fun at Steve which was slightly unkind.. Not sure what others think
I don't think anybody made fun of him. He was called on his own words, and how he said poner thing and meant another. He is a universalist without a shred of evidence in the New Testament. I do understand what he means. But his words are one thing, and three meaning totally other. He is actually saying people will find themselves spending eternity with God whether they like it or not. Jesus will reconcile all by sheer power!!
I find it ironic that Steve came on this show to discuss and receive criticism of the content of his book. Than once the critique barely begins becomes fragile, and exceedingly defensive...
There are a lot of criticisms against Steve and his character. Fair, but that has nothing to do with the arguments. The jump from 'he was rude so he is wrong' is quite illogical. I also find it interesting the critiques of him trying to reinterpret people like Martin Luther, Aristotle, Paul, etc. These were men too, and they all shared slightly different theologies. Steve only varies slightly in the fundamentals of his theology to Phil, really just a few key things cause them to diverge. Such as, how to interpret justice and the power of love. What emerges out the other side may seem like a vast distance between the two, but it's not really so. The story logically can make sense with either. What I wanna ask then, is why did God make the Bible interpretable to this degree, where at the very least, honest and sincere men are trying to understand the truth of it, but arriving at different conclusions? God is not the author of confusion 1 Corinthians 14:33. Maybe the truth is written on our hearts? When I go to my heart, I can't make sense of perfect love torturing confused ignorant humans for all of eternity, even if they were so ignorant their evil manifested in terrible ways. There is no justice there. Finite crimes for infinite torture is not just for one. Two, Jesus taught us the heart of God, and what Jesus taught is "forgive them, for they know not what they do". Jesus gave us the answer, the hell's we create are out of our ignorance. Justice and punishment always serve to restore and to edify. This aligns with what we are taught about love. Matthew 18:22 Jesus teaches we continue to forgive, over and over. So, my challenge to everyone being rather unloving to either of these guys, consider both of these men have given their entire lives to seeking the truth of God and Jesus, and they are sharing their information and experience that they have acquired. The Bible does say to be wise, listen carefully for truth, and listen to your hearts. God's love is much more powerful than His need for vengeance.
Right on. Forgive and love all.
Everybody is gangsta until Phil Moore shows up
I think Steve Chalke has come at the situation with an agenda. It seems he has some views and has tried to scoop Paul up by his feet, replant him and then say he actually is like this and supports these views. I don't think redefining Paul to meet some agendas criteria or to support something he seems so against is dishonest. This is what I think has happened here but whatever has happened in this discussion seems to be something really really polarising, there seems to be very little they agree upon. To sides it seems. I think the bible is in a state where anyone should be able to understand the main concept but also have infinite depth, I don't like this idea Steve presents where only after studying this tremendously will you find this 'hidden truth' that is actually the opposite of the current christian view. I don't think conflicting ideas are to be found if you stare at it long enough or talk about it for long enough until it warps into the thing you hope it to mean.
If a guy like Paul was around today,claiming to see visions,prpbably be treated for some mental misfire
@@frankwhelan1715 we understand him in context. Jesus was not crucified and risen yesterday, or appeared to Paul. If he had he wouldn't be different because he is the Truth and Life. You can't just grab his Love and leave his holiness, and justice aside!! You can't just love how's he rebuked hipocrites, and leave out how he said: go and sin no more. Also how he's said he who calls his brother dum or stupid is worthy of hell!! It's all or nothing. Let's not pick and choose. He is God, not us.
He is false teacher that for sure.
12¶For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
I am grateful for Steve and his hard work. And for putting himself through interviews like this. I don't think he gets it all right, but he is taking the bible seriously and looking to see what Paul and Jesus really meant. God is love. Mercy triumphs over judgement. And Paul does support this. Check out Robin Parry and David Bentley Hart for more detailed analysis. Eternal torment is not biblical in my opinion.
Oh my gosh😩
Steve won’t stop talking and kept interrupting so I can’t even tell what the other guy thinks and what his points are. I almost shut this off twice. This is the third time and my head is about to split open.
try listening impartially instead of coming to the discussion with christian presuppositions.
I kinda wish this episode wasn't released wasn't super uplifting.
I wish all Unbelievable episodes started with William saying to the guests "by the way if this conversation is not edifying this will not be released."
Great subject but somewhat spoilt by weak moderation allowing Steve ( who’s position I agree with btw ) to dominate I would estimate at 2/3rds of the allotted time. Steve, enthusiastic as you are, please respect your fellow contributor by not railroading over him
To be fair, Steve wrote the book and was there to defend his view against the challenges being brought. Phil was there to critique Steve so it does make some sense that Steve was allowed to speak more. You can hardly say Steve was given an easy ride
The eternal punishment is explicit in Paul's writing: "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thessalonians 1:9, ESV)
Ah.
But what do we do with;
"Jesus Christ is the saviour of all mankind, especially those believing ".
Not trying to start any arguments here,Dave.
But maybe you would be willing to share your opinion on this verse?
I ask from a sincere heart. I am a hopeful universalist and there's plenty of scripture to support the position.
But also plenty enough for those who wish to refute it.
@@spiritof6986 Jesus Christ IS the savior of all mankind. He died for the Sin of the world. He was the ONLY one capable of doing so. But does that mean everyone automatically receives salvation (eternal life) because of Christ's work on the cross? Are there NO conditions for receiving the free gift of salvation other than being born? Does not Paul teach that one has to completely trust in Christ's work on the cross in order to be saved? What about "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"? What about the fact that Paul states that it is only when we believe (trust in) Jesus' work on the cross, that God is able to take the righteousness of God and transfer it onto the believer? Why did Christ even have to die on the cross? Why wouldn't a loving God simply decide that everyone who's ever been born, no matter what sort of life they have lived, no matter whether or not they even believed in God, their creator and savior, no matter is they've totally rejected the very idea of a God, would die and go to heaven? Why even bother with a life on earth? Why not simply have all of mankind be born in heaven?
@@carolbriwn6068
Greetings from Scotland, Carol.
Your questions indeed are mine as well.
And despite the myriad of answers that are available, we'll only know the whole truth when we 'get there'.
The one main question that stands out for me,is that of substitutionary penal atonement.
Why did an innocent man have to brutally tortured and killed, that i may live.
In light of the nature of our creator being that of kindness,forgiveness,love and mercy,the sacrifice makes no sense to me at all.
It's abhorrent.
@@spiritof6986 I guess people would say that "Saviour of all mankind" is being used in a different sense.
@@deepblue8081
They sure do.
In the early 1990s Steve was the go to man for youth camps and inspiration for youth leaders as I was,it's very sad how his theology has gone ' progressive' and he is now amongst those who will no longer put up with sound doctrine.
LOL Steve has always been progressive.
I disagree with you. He has rightly grown into this paradigm of his faith. There are countless verses suggesting the victorious gospel, over and above the severely limited gospel by which billions end up in hell without any hope of reprieve. Most Christians that Jesusus is nor Saviour but only POTENTIAL Saviour only after they have said the sinner's prayer. It's almost self salvation and does not recognize the cross as the finished work of Jesus Christ.
@kevinrombouts3027 sorry,your reply doesn't read very well and it's difficult for me to grasp your objection to what I originally said, which I stand by.its always good to dig into scripture, countless verses? hmm. Steve's coming now from a position of the universalist who rejects traditional biblical understanding exegesis and hermeneutics as just being unkind,he protests he loves the word whilst always citing individuals whom he has met or counselled who want sex outside of whats plainly taught as right holy and good in scripture and uses their personal pain as justification to unpick the bible,its unfortunate you are unable to see the problem.
The easiest way to tell when somebody's full of it is when they don't want the other person to talk.
The reason why Moore and Brierly are vehemently opposed to all being brought together in Christ’s love is that this threatens the hegemony of the church. It’s all about control. It’s cultic. They have to have a clearly defined in-group contrasted by the out-group. And heaven forbid the two should be confused or worse, brought together by Love, “because we, the people who benefit from Christian hegemonic power, would loose our grip in this right wing politico-religious cult and we’re going to ride this one all the way to the bank.”
There are only two options. One is that Moore and Brierly are entirely cynical, as I suggest. Really the only alternative is that they are completely brainwashed, which is equally alarming for the future of not just Christendom but of civilisation itself.
I am no Steve Chalke fan, but I think it was actually Phil who was antagonistic and disparaging. This is "The Big Conversations", it's not a debate, yet straight out of the gate Phil attacks Steve with some reasonably big claims and also clearly a quote that wasn't even appropriately quoted. He didn't even understand the purpose of outlining the need to only speak about the books that we know are written by Paul, but instead saw it as some kind of error. You can say what you want about his theology and scholarship, but I don't blame Steve for being defensive. Phil had an agenda to go after him from the get-go. NT Wright would have been a much better person to create meaningful and thoughtful discussion.
It was embarrassing to watch Phil. He was contemptuous. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Disagree with his opinion all you want, but don't try to humiliate the guy. Anyone can read the book and make up their own mind.
I'm an atheist (ex-christian), married to a Christian. And I've learnt and always tried to remain respectable in my discussions. Phil here was not.
Steve Chalke is the one with the new claim - it makes sense that he would have to defend his claim. Steve's book opposes key portions of widely held church eschatology. If you think Phil is being antagonistic, isn't Steve the one that interrupts the most and seems hesitant to wait his turn to respond? Steve certainly spent the most time talking. Everyone in the discussion has an agenda - no one is coming to the discussion as a blank slate. Phil is promoting a book and Steve has read the book.
NT Wright would certainly be a good discussion partner. Its plain that Tom also disagrees with Steve and that Tom's/Phil's view is more widely-held view among the public and scholars.
@@clay1678 that's fine. But there is a respectful tone that can be taken. Just bring up the claims and argue against them. Don't need to rubbish his books cover and stuff like that for cheap shots.
I am not sure Steve does himself any favours trying to present his work as acceptable to conservative Christians though. He should just come straight out that he is a liberal Christian. I suspect his background and fellow Christians make him feel embarrassed to admit it so freely.
@@1000whispering I think you make a good point - both men in this discussion were at times unfair to their discussion partner. The bit with the cover was a good example. Steve also did this by continued insinuations that Phil needed to go study more. However, it was more congenial than most debates I've seen so I think its fair to give both men some credit as well.
I see why Steve presents his opinion the way he does - he is someone with scholarly credentials who is presenting a fairly radical idea about a key church doctrine. He sees his idea as correct and that it can be argued for outside of any appeal to a conservative or liberal disposition. And I agree with him that his approach is the correct one if he feels convicted in the truth of his claim. But in doing so he has to address the reasoning for going against the common view as held by modern and classical scholars.
They make accusations at Steve and then when he defends himself it’s always “well, we’ll come to that..”
I prefer these discussions when the atheist isn’t Steve Chalke.
I take Phil Moore's side. The seems to have a better argument. Steve is desperately wanting to get rid of the things that bother him instead of wrestling with what is called for in Paul's writings.
I say again well done Phil. He needs to get delivered.
It's very unfortunate that the top apologetics channels (Unbelievable, Capturing Christianity, Inspiring Philosophy etc) have utterly failed to engage the strongest and most persuasive proponents of Christ-centered/Christ-mediated universalism-- see the second edition of Tom Talbott's book on universalism ("Inescapable Love of God"), or Talbott's contributions to the 2003 volume "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate" (edited by Parry and Partridge), or Robin Parry's book "The Evangelical Universalist" (under pen name Gregory MacDonald), or Reitan and Kronen's 2011 book "God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism."
These provide among the best philosophical and Biblical arguments for Christ-centered universalism.
What is the role of free will in Steve's eschatology? If all of our choices lead to the same end doesn't that remove any ultimate meaning? I think Steve has taken some small points around misunderstanding Paul and expanded that so far that contradicts large parts of scripture.
I haven't read any of Steve's stuff yet, but I take a very similar stance to him on pretty much everything he said (and he leaves much open, rightfully so). But some believe in a period of 'hell' that is not eternal, but instead maybe a more intense and direct exposure to the reality of sin and de-humanization. This could even be interpreted in the idea of the 'fire of God's love', kind of in line with C.S. Lewis' thought that 'even heaven would be hell to someone who wants to reject God'... Believers in Christ will avoid this period of 'condemnation' (be careful with words though..) and 'hell'. A universalist here would then simply believe that everyone (their conscious self, I guess, if it happens after physical death, according to this view..) eventually does accept Christ by a 'choice' as we could ever perceive it as such. So there is room for free will there in the realm of how we experience the consequences of our sin and how we experience God's love, exemplified in Christ. But ultimately the idea of free will and God's total sovereignty and omnipotence will always be at odds with each other, no matter the theology.. most Christians just bury it deeper than they can think about it, but I don't think it can ever go away. It's a divine paradox.
Oh Holy spirit you have failed us as we needed Steve to tell us your true and secret message.
again!
Thank you Steve Chalke for talking about legitimate scholarship and its breadth, rather than narrow theological interpretations of certain wings of Christian thinking.
Although he interrupts a little too much, I'm glad he discussed theology. Phil Moore seems to be attacking Steve as a person which isn't what this specific platform is made for.
Yes Phil was angry and attacking. Funny thing is that Phil has holed up in a church and Steve has actually been helping people and doing the work of Jesus to the masses - Steve is the hands and feet.
how about Mr. Chalke actually citing some verses to support his "theory"?!?
@@carolbriwn6068 because he understands that even though there are 150 verses that prove what he believes Christian’s will manage to explain every single one of them away scripture poker is a game with no ending this argument is more about translation and interpretation of the scriptures if your looking for hell you’ll find it if your looking for annihilationism you’ll find that too and if your looking for universal reconciliation you’ll find that so it becomes about what’s your view of God who do you believe that he is a torturer or a destroyer or a savior
Any book that annoys Moore this much must be good. So I’ve just gone online and bought it. Really looking forward to to a bit of decent healthy Christlike theology. Not this narrow hell and damnation mediaeval nightmare Moore is advocating
Please invite Robin Parry to discuss Universalism.
Phil is typical of the “Turn or burn” crap
Enjoyed listening to this debate. Steve Chalke wants to start a conversation and his view is making sense to me.
@
Judith Osborne Judith, would you ever be interested in the Christian Gospel, rather than Chalke's heretical one?
Steve loves the sound of his own voice and the NIV version needs to be binned, Steve
Good grief -- why does Chalke bother with Christianity at all? -- just make something up.
Because he has his own mind and can think about things?
@@DIBBY40 I agree. Phil is awfully narrow .... and its all fiction anyway.
St Augustine said, 'If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
@@DIBBY40 no, the scripture is total authority , no one has the right to try and change Gods word ever. no matter who you are.
@@TheRealhope4u How do you know your interpretation of scripture is the right one?
I wonder if Jesus was a universalist when he included prostitutes sinners, witches, politician, crooks and gentiles in his message of salvation, I think the ultimate message of the gospel is love without love the gospel its just a philosophy.
Yes. Jesus desired for all to be saved. His sacrifice obviously was enough for all to be saved. But unless we do away with All of the Old and New testament, repentance is the only requisite!
Abandon sin, turn 180° to Jesus, pick up your cross and follow Him. The whole preaching of John the baptizer and of Jesus was " repent" abandon sin. It was not " don't worry everything you do doesn't matter" " continue in sin" " the Bible knew nothing about adult consent marriages" and so on.
So. Do read the NTestament for yourself. You can even read the original language for yourself. It will be clear if you ask them Holy Spirit, he'll guide you
Jesus was a universalist when he died for all of Mankind, when he died for all the sins of Mankind. And he died because of his love for all of Mankind. But in order for someone to be saved, one has to trust in (completely) the work that Christ did on the cross. Salvation is a gift in as much as one does not have to work for it. So "what must I do to be saved?" Believe! That's the condition. The one and only condition. Paul made this very clear in ALL of his epistles.
Steve Chalke doesn't believe in substitutionary atonement. The mainstay of the Christian faith and the biggest hindrance to it.
Steve Chalk talking about how he wants a conversation by talking over other people constantly. Steve's speaking over Phil Moore constantly and not letting anyone else talk or give their opinion. A very disappointing debate, purely due to Steve not allowing his opposition to speak.
Around 19:00 - - 20:00 is quite important for a westernal church member. Although Steve Chalk 's style is impatient his point is crucial. I grown up in evangelical churches where the "Jewish understanding " was basic. And the eastern way of thinking is inevitable for the right thinking about "works" in Paul's dictionary. The modern Bible editions are filled with cultural mistranslations.
POV : you only watch the first few seconds of dis and start posting gangsta comments about phil
God's justice is not about God agreeing with what sin can do to us, rather restoring us from what sin has done to us.
Ok Christians, let's just live the way we want because salvation is already guaranteed.
What kind of gospel is that!??
No one is asserting that
Steve's comment that Paul has had more effect on the world than Christianity (my understanding, not quoted verbatim) caused my alarm bells to ring on Steve's stance. Then that we have to take on world thinking .... What? After watching the last debate and then this one, it seems that it doesn't matter what he says as long as he keeps the mic.
Blew me away when Phil said to Steve, "That preacher was you!" Tragic how far Steve has strayed from the truth of the gospel. Truly a spiritually blind man.
I wouldn't say he has strayed. Rather I would say his perspective changed based on his own research and mature understanding. You can clearly see the love of Christ in him. Even if you believe he is wrong about eternal punishment and how God views sin, he has it right 100 percent on God's love which to me is far more important. If it is true that God excludes people that choose not to believe in him, they wouldn't be swayed by God's love anyway. And those that come to God out of fear of punishment rather than love for God, as Phil claims to have (which listening to him speak the one thing that has keep him in Christ is God's love), are not establishing a right relationship anyway and are not true lovers of God.
@@mountbrocken "You can clearly see the love of Christ in him." I take it you're NOT a Christian, Robert.
@@mountbrocken
Very well said, Robert. You and I both recognize the "voice" that we are hearing.
Steve Chalke has the "Love" in Theology at the top of the list where it belongs.
Some of these other folks fancy themselves as having all their doctrinal ducks in nice neat row; but have not Love, which is the chiefest, and compound their error via the accusing others of "not being Christian", they themselves having nothing to offer but agony or ashes, despite what they may or may not know.
Yet somehow they take it upon themselves to deem who is what, when it is the jurisdiction of Lord Jesus. They transgress the Saviour of All by naysaying He Saves All, lusting for revenge through the vicarious vengeance of God, yet not understanding what "Judgement" is. The Carnal Christian says, "You are not Christian" to those who believe differently than they, thereby failing to see Christ in "The Other".
@@stevenfrasier5718 I think that they have been so inundated with the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, as per SOME passages in the Bible which anthropomorphize God, and as such find Steve's hermeneutical analysis of scripture as heretical when in fact it is merely an extension of what we see IN Jesus. I just wish there were more Steve Chalke's around here ;)
@@mountbrocken
LOL... yes! and less Spartan 300s
Why is universalism such a bad word? Itcan be supported theologically, biblically, historically and philosophically - Love never fails!
Absolutely. It really is that simple.. and that wonderful! 😀
The reason Brierly and Moore argue against this is because of control the church looses control and authority as soon as we recognise that God loves everything and everyone and that he brings all together in that love.
Another thought. This clash is a an interesting example of the "essay thinking" VS Hebrew "double decker" or "flipside" approach.* Phil isn't able to withdraw himself from showing "elegant - arrogant ignorance" on briton way..
The rethinking of the Theology doesn't mean unbelief. The arguing with an enthusiastic person does not mean despising the individual WHO at least tried the hardest way.
I'm not the fan of the universalism at all but, being pro musician, I'm fan of the "urtext" thinking. The WAY of the thinking is important to the biblical faith - after all it should not be the way of the universalism.
*"Pistis Cristos" really HAS a two directional MESSAGE. Paul has Hebrew thinking. He often uses this kind of tools. It was not mentioned in this discuss as I remember...
I think Steve doth protest too much.
Chalke is spot-on when he criticises how the Churches have changed their understanding of St Paul’s letters. They have behaved very badly.
Roman Catholic?
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 Who ?
PLEASE HAVE PHIL AND STEVE DO A PODCAST FROM TWO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON CHRISTIANITY. I ADORE THESE MEN!
My goodness am I the only one who thinks that Steve Chalke COMPLETELY over talked Phil Moore? My goodness, this was not a discussion everytime Phil would begin laying down the groundwork of his argument or response Steve would nose dive in! I believe Phil had the ability to press Steve more however Steve hijacked the conversation by continuous interruption and dodgy 21st Century liberalistic responses.
Maybe because that argument is dishonest!
@@shonagraham2752 simplistic understanding and very judgmental for a christian.
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 Yep Always was judgemental of the fuckwit bigots element in so called professed Christians Personal never believed in a judgement day but if there is will be sitting in front to listen to yours!
You're not the only one. If you watch any debates with Steve Chalke he does this all the time.
This, Michael, is Chalke's well-practised weapon; talk, interrupt, ask a question, make a quick comment which turns into a mini sermon, then laughter to break the flow of the conversation, then another quick comment, then a point of order, then an attempt to correct an alleged misunderstanding, then a correction...check it out, again. This is the old devil in disguise.
Steve Chalke totally let himself down here. His behaviour was disgraceful. He was determined from the beginning never to let Phil Moore complete a sentence, and did you notice how whenever Moore tried to explain any of the errors in the book, Chalke always tries to deflect by invoking Nazis, Roman dictators and Apartheid? His behaviour was like a guilty school child trying to avoid the other children telling their side of the story. He comes across as somebody who has totally lost the plot, and yet is trying to deny it.
Phil was making false accusations and ignoring Steve's reasonable explanations. He kept re-mentioning things that Steve had already explained. Steve is the one who wrote the book and is the one putting himself on the line here. Phil constantly used petty statements to attack and Steve wouldn't stand for it. So Steve has to go on and on to defend himself. No grace whatsoever shown by Phil. He had nothing to lose here and risked nothing, but rather came only to destroy.
If it's true that the words used to write the Bible had different meanings that we thought they had, then it's very important. That is Steve's, Tom Wright's, and others' main point.
It’s tempting to change the original, clear, message of the gospel to a version that brings comfort to one’s own hopes or biases. As the years have gone by Mr. Chalke has given into this.
What he is trying to pass off as corrections of the understandings of Paul’s teachings are the very thing that has moved him away from the true meaning.
He should simply be a critic of wrong methods churches are using. But instead he went to the message.
The problem is not the message.
Let it stand clear, and let it ring true. This is the only job of the faithful preacher.
You're arrogance is clear to me!
Love wins everyone. I believe that!
Of course! But if you reject God's love, there his justice. Or do you forget the price he paid. Why did Jesus need to die if sins were not condemning us in the end? If you cannot choose to reject God at the end.... Why suffer persecution and why preach the Gospel?
@@claudiaperfetti7694 I don't reject the love of God. However , I,m not a Christian.
Yes it does!
shut up steve, wait your turn!
Jonathan Haynes - they need a “talking stick” to pass around.
To put it more GENTLY - "Everyone should be quick to listen, and slow to speak (James 1:19)."
he finds it difficult to exercise patience with idiots
All the people on here who are so aggressive against Steve Chalke should read “Finding God in the waves” by Mike McHargue. I have been ardently fundamentalist evangelical in my doctrine for many years but was forced to be more humble debating with very intelligent atheists in a very logical engineering profession. I know God is real and have even seen an angel with my own eyes, but the harmonisation of theology and science is no way simple and the implications of the theory of evolution would shake many of the self assured wannabe apologists if they weren’t living in denial. I still honour the apostle Paul and all his writings, but he was still a citizen of the culture and the knowledge of his time (which makes his letters all the more amazing in my opinion and his definition of love in 1Corinthians 13 is enough to prove God inspired him in itself)