Have we misunderstood St Paul? Steve Chalke vs Phil Moore

welcome along to the program our very own Steve great to have you both joining me we're talking about what did Paul really say today about faith salvation hell universalism all big topics that we're going to look at and tell us about this book first of all Steve what why have you decided to write on the Apostle Paul specifically I've decided I decided write about the Apostle Paul for a whole number of reasons I think that as a kid in growing up in churches three times on Sunday you know morning afternoon evening every time we read from the Gospels it was straightforward Paul can be dense complex lots of metaphors that are hard to understand etc so as a kid my memory was when they read from the Gospels I always used to think now it's gonna be a good Sunday do you know and when they read from Paul it's gonna be like a try as they might to explain it it didn't make much sense often to me but that's not really the reason I read I wrote the book over the years I guess I've realized that much of what Paul said over of the subjects that Paul covered have been used weaponized basically and used on other people to crush them in actual fact I was going to tell you that last night somebody texted me I was on a train back into London last night someone text me from the Train about a suicide bid that they tried to make a few days before because they'd been rejected by a church in fact by told by church that they would be giving to hell I was going to tell you that story but actually on the on the bus across here I got a text from a church leader about a completely different issue that she was facing where she's been driven from her church by men who believe that women can't lead and can't speak and have no authority so I would say that in both of these cases and then you could add to it the you know the terrible sin of a path etc etc Paul's words phrases sentences have been drummed into the support of lots of doctrines policies beliefs that he would not in my view have ever endorsed in fact I think they've twisted his words on their head well that's interesting I mean so that's why well yeah right so you're you're effectively trying to in your view write some mistakes that you think have well right I think he's I don't think I'm I'm all I'm doing is hopefully adding to the conversation which is why it's great that we're having a conversation I I you know I'm don't claim any kind of sense of infallibility in actual fact I think that Paul's letters were written to communities to debate and to discuss and perhaps that something that our part of the church the western part of the church has lost we listen to the man or the woman stood at the front in the pulpit or with the mic and what they say goes but of course then you go to the church down the road and they say something different and you go to the church across the road and they say something different again so I think all of these things are discussions conversations and so I I think the opening little paragraph or two of my book which was going to be an introduction but my PA said I should turn you into chapter one simply says I'd like to I'd like it's to have a conversation about Paul right well you've certainly started that and I'm looking forward to hearing the the issues were going to be delving into as I say faith how universalism every one of them is a big one we'll do what we can with the time we've got Phil you're here to sort of engage and you've had a chance to read the book tell us some what what your overall response is well I just think it's really helpful to hear you Steve say what what what was your motivation for writing the book because I must be honest as I was reading the book I wasn't nodding a lot but I was nodding it at those moments the moments where you said I find Paul hard to understand and I want to make him easier to understand and the moments where you were just saying these verses these chapters have been weaponized by people to do horrible things and I want to stop them doing that when you were describing the problem I was nodding because I think the problem you're describing is a real problem and I would hope every bible-believing Church a leader and theologian would agree with you on that problem but it's interesting as you're describing why you wrote the book that you're not actually saying I love the Apostle Paul I love his teaching no I well that's not what you said though yeah you're not saying I love his Apostle Paul my life's been changed by his teachings I really understand this man I want to help the world to understand his message your starting point is he's been badly well I'm just repeating back to you yeah yeah your starting point is he's been badly preached and weaponized yeah and I want to find a way in which people can do neither which you may do it's just that I don't think that isn't a call I think I say in I think I say I think I say in the opening little spiel the bit that might be a said you should turn this from an introduction to chapter 1 that actually I think Paul is fascinating I mean I really do not because I got bored by sermons about him when I was a kid but I genuinely I genuinely think and I think I say several times in the book though Paul is a genius I think he's he's a world-class polymath and I think he's are on the level of some of the other great Greek teachers etc etc I think his influence has been far wider than Christianity I think he was the great include er I think he was the great reformer I think he was the person by the way perhaps we should do with this now why is Paul more complicated than Jesus because I know we're saying the book Jesus spoke to a mainly Jewish audience and he talked them about a way of life Paul listened to Jesus words go into all the world and teach everyone so he goes to communities who know nothing about Judaism nothing about the Sabbath nothing about circumcision and he's working with communities that are both Jewish and Gentile in fact they're the only community who works with a cross-cultural in that way and he's trying to get some people who think these things circumcision are very important to work with other people who have no idea what circumcision it'll be really good to talk about the depth suppose teaching but just from it from the top kind of full disclosure chapter one you say how brilliant you think Paul is yeah chapter three you say that you don't think that he wrote six of the thirteen books of the Bible that are attributed to you know I don't you do chart a why cuz as I say there is near universal no sense no way to write Lisa here's the thing here's the thing no I don't quite say that cuz I actually read that bit in my book this morning cuz I wasn't know cuz I was long ago I wanted to just check what I'd written so I do want me to tell me I've sold my book I wish you check what was written before you publish no no okay yeah well I say is something quite different than that actually so instead of searching through let me I don't need to searches here okay many scholars challenge the authenticity you mainly sailors the scholars disagree with one another there's cultural consensus let's just talk about it yet one and to Timothy and Titus that's the a pastoral letters there's general consensus that the three pastoral letters are written in Paul's name after his death let me say this there all right what I say is there's a footnote on it as well I'm sure there's a footnote because I tried to write the footnote makes it worse I tried to write a popular level book and then write footnotes the facts of the matter are not the church's private view there are seven of Paul's letters which are generally uncontested universally accepted to be written by the Apostle Paul there are there are thirteen letters however in is they that that are written in his name what I'm saying isn't unique actually why do you think so many preachers including people like NT Wright would say this is Paul line so people constantly use the phrase ballin and they use the phrase Paul line when they're telling you this is written in Paul's name it may be by him it may be won by one of his disciples so so in actual fact the six contested box somewhat contested more than others but faxes feel like it or not the Bible there is there is a worldwide discussion about these what you're claiming is my private profit or the reason we're doing this this discussion together is because we're encouraging the watcher the listener to make up their own yeah my concern is you just mentioned NT right and early on in your book you say these aren't really my ideas I'm just summarizing what scholars around the world lots of scholars here which is a little bit like the person who says to you everybody's saying that without telling you everybody except I put footnotes in to tell you who it was not very many people come up on Google everyone see what's right I'm not going to do my theology on googling no no no I think perhaps you've mentioned NT right yeah the thing that strikes me most about the lost message of Paul your new book is that you wrote a book called the lost message of Jesus in 2003 yes which had been stunning endorsement from NT right read this books brilliant what strikes me most about the lost message of Paul is that there is no endorsement from NT right the endorsement from NT Wright has been replaced by an endorsement from Rob Bell yeah - I think they're any discerning reader that's that songs loud volume okay so so Phil don't read a plot into everything I've talked with Tom Tom right about all of this we've had a long conversation about the ways in which I agree with him the ways in which I disagree with some of his theology Thomas my friend so the fact the fact that I asked well I didn't ask these people no it's you know that the fact that these people were approached are to do with SPC K so I think Richard roars there etc etc I think let me just check I think there's a there's a quote from there's a quote from an Oxford scholar some on earth II yeah I mean I wasn't a bit many scholars yeah that's my as it stands I mean it's an interesting point that Phil's raising here that you quite obviously a lot from nt right Tom right who is you know a well-known scholar of Paul and one of those leading authorities they're obviously not endorsed on this occasion by him is your concern Phil that that some of what is what you're saying that some of some of the views that Steve is saying a lots of people agree with me I'm not necessarily well my my concern is I don't think you're setting out to deceive Steve but I think that that my concern is that somebody picking up the book and reading it will infer from it all sorts of things which which aren't necessarily truths for example when you say you know consensus among scholars is these books were not written by Paul my friend Tom Wright I own books by Tom Wright called called you know the message of Paul and it's those books and he doesn't used you know the the kind of weasel words of poor line yeah he says there's no weather so this is serious scholarship and let me make this point and then we move on whatever you say that the Bible was not private property what I mean by that it studied around the world in leading universities is studied by linguists is studied by his story as he studied by sociologists Paul was a polymath he studied by anthropologists sociologists etc etc etc it goes on so we know that that there is worldwide consensus about him right in seven of these there is doubt about the other six at different levels so so 1thessalonians everybody agrees Paul wrote to Thessalonians some people would say I'm not saying I believe it actually I'll explain mind you do no no no I don't say that I don't say that let me explain what I do say in the book I wrote I say that some scholars say that 2 Thessalonians he's just like 1 Thessalonians with a different timeline for the coming of Christ the pastoral epistles to Timothy and Titus they according to many scholars theologians reflect a more develop view of church governance deacons elders etc etc etc then were poles concerns in the first generation and so some of them would say these were written towards the end of his life by others who were his disciples and some say they were written in next generation now that said now what I say what I say in my book really I think I did write clear that Phil like it or not is a worldwide debate the church can't shut it down the church used to say the Bible was really clear that a divorced person couldn't remarry and ruined loads of lives and then people go oh I've had a different view of it churches used to say no woman should be able to speak in my congregation oh I've just reconsidered that view and now we're moving on so let's be clear we're all working at this all the time but what I do say what I say the exact words I use what the phraseology I use these what I'm gonna do through this book is I'm going to work with mostly work with the text that everyone agrees Paul wrote so that no section of the church because different sections believe different things say I'm not reading this because he's using text that I don't mean just direct this I'm happy but Phil what what's your ultimate problem with the idea of simply acknowledging that adds that a number of people don't believe that these particular letters are in white but yeah I'm not particularly trying to I'm not trying to persuade you Steve and I'm certainly not trying to rile you so sorry for yeah I'm just I don't dissent for readers the facts I'm happy to just throw a line under it I'm just wanting anyone who's watching or listening to this broadcast thinking I want to understand what's the lost message of Paul about I'm just wanting to underline that your primary agenda is not to understand what Paul says in the thirteen biblical books which bears no no your primary agenda I think it is to rescue Paul from some preachers that you found difficult from some people that you feel of weaponized Paul from scholars who are disputing Paul Jim and I and I agree with ya concern over those problems I just think your solution let's get a new little thing bit light into this of course the early church the very early church in in the second generation even believed that Paul wrote Hebrews it was Oregon who would probably talk about later in the theological school at Alexandria that said Paul was not the author of Hebrews going to quite a lot of trouble for it but I think everyone would agree you've said thirteen books not fourteen because we now come to the few and we take it as axiomatic Paul didn't write Hebrews so this isn't challenging the authority of the Bible to ask whether we're talking about are ones that begin with Paul and Apostle writing to the book of Hebrews is Anonymous's you know in which is why people have my way you wrote it my point is so I'm not even saying that I believe that seven are definitely Paul and the others definitely art for instance there's lots of questions about round Ephesians for reasons that we won't go into I'm I happen to believe I've happened to believe in my head I'm really clear that I think that Paul clearly wrote ephesians although i have to acknowledge that's not well universal and so i don't want to put people off who hold different views but are christians there are some people who when they're trying to understand the message of Paul will want to look to an author who believes that he wrote yes and there are lots of people who want to be a little bit more scholarly now let's let's let's leave that there let's draw a line man take on world thinking instead of hide away in a little obviously one of many many loquacious we got time to cover a few things come back to okay why don't we talk about faith first of all just very briefly in a nutshell if you would Steve explain one of these key issues that you bring out in the book where you believe Paul has been mistranslated we're saved through the faithfulness of Christ rather than through our faith why is that distinction important and and yeah just give us a brief sketch of it so really it's a really important distinction as and as I'm sure it's because like Wars line with Tom and Tom writes books would know that this is exactly what Tom Wright has written and said long before me and many others back in 1977 ten years after England won the World Cup last ten years and a bit a guy called ed Sanders who was Oxford an Oxford scholar wrote the book called Paulin Palestinian Judaism he was actually building on scholarship that been there from others but he found it hard to get a publication deal for his book because it was dynamite and and he introduced the idea of that the church in the West particularly had not understood Paul they had misunderstood Paul so even the title of my book is it's it's actually what's colours being Santos for a long long long long time and he said that we misunderstood Paul because we turned he said Luther and turned him into more of a Greek than a Jew that Paul didn't have a beef with Judaism he was a Jew technical phrase coming up here was a second temple do with a particular outlook on life the best way of perhaps understanding that in a sentence is if you go if you watch Donald Trump in the States you know often wears that hat that says make America great again a second temple Jew believed that God was going to make Israel great again restore to us the kingdom and so Paul comes from that line of thinking but he has his life and his and his understanding of second temple Judaism transformed by his encounter with Christ and and so what what ed Sanders said by the way Tom Wright was sitting in his room because he was a student right and so was James Dunn and various others and these are part of what's often called the new perspective new perspective from polum and Tom I think he would say well I know would say because I've read so many of his scholarly books as well as this popular is bombs around they say talk with him endlessly he would say that all the new perspective on Paul stuff new perspective on the way that Paul was thinking and what made him think are his work they're wrong just ripples of this bomb that was dropped in by Ed Sanders and he basically said Luther Martin Luther the reformer misunderstood Paul because he took him for a Jew Luther added beef with the medieval Catholic Church because he thought they were saved by works indulgences so he assumed that Paul had a beef with Jews because they all thought they were saved by their works because that phrase gets used but ed Sanders said what Luther didn't understand his Paul was using that term works in a particular way to talk about circumcision the food laws etc not about works you know being kind being generous keeping the Ten Commandments etc etc so Paul he said for someone who wasn't at least bit concerned with works bends a lot of his teaching saying live like this don't live like this don't lie don't cheat don't steal be generous give be kind etc Paul was very into how you lived but based on the fact that he believed that all Jews were chosen by God not because of what they did it was to do with the Covenant they were in because God chose them and what I argue in my book really just based on what other scholars are saying and I'm not saying it that's not that's not for I can't tell you who they are read the book you're on the footnotes yeah they say that they say that actually that was Paul's worldview the Jews were all in because they would use because God loved them it's nothing to do with them and what Paul discovers is that Christ the Jewish Messiah has has become the Messiah the Christ of the whole world so I argue that everyone runs in because of the faithfulness faithfulness of Christ by the way I'm not Universalist I don't know where you go but you know I raise that now so I can look out the Center nose come to University later because I want I want to be very clear because I buy my book people I see where I say absolutely am NOT a user on the radio I won't be able to see but yeah those watching on TV it's fascinating when you hold up your book you can't actually see the name Paul at all you can only see the name Steve joy I know that's your publisher and it's a Freudian a let's let's keep this on track okay okay okay okay so yeah just just to be really clear though that for you I mean what you've been describing there is is the new perspective on your justification and everything else but this this idea that there's been this mistranslation you specifically pull out very clearly in the book in your view that the we're saved through the faithfulness of Christ rather than it being our faith somehow yes and and for you this is obviously very significant why exactly what difference does that is it is not it's not that it's significant for me is that it is significant so what happened is Martin Luther began translating and then Calvin followed and others followed a little phase pista Stowe which Paul uses six times in his writing as your faith in Christ you are saved by your faith in Christ and then what headset Sanders and actually a guy called Richard Hayes who wrote after him who wrote a book called the faith of Christ in 1993 said actually pissed as Chris do is much better and more accurately translated as the faithfulness of Christ so we asked you want to have a feel a little discussion about yes so they said actually it's not the faith it's not that we are saved by our faith in Christ faith in Christ what Paul is saying is that we're rescued by the faithfulness of Christ just like the Jews were so this now applies to everyone so that's what they say and so I'm saying but that's an entire different way of viewing faith isn't it it's not about my ability to havin to hold without doubt onto this faith it's about Christ's faithfulness then what he has done for me which is why by the way I'm not Universalist and no ice okay welcome yeah okay all right we're gonna go to our first break and then we'll let you respond Phil to this issue of the faithfulness versus being saved through through faith in Christ and we're going to talk about universalism and your take on on hell and maybe you can fit in a bit on the Roth slash anger of God that you cover lots of different issues that you bring bring to the fore here in this latest book Steve so my guests today on unbelievable are steve chalk and fillmore we're talking about whether the church has misunderstood simple and we'll be back in a short moments time for more conversations between christians and skeptics subscribe to the unbelievable podcast and for more updates and bonus content sign up to the unbelievable newsletter welcome back to today's show I'm joined on the program by Steve chalk and Fillmore asking has the church misunderstood sent Paul Steve's new book is called the lost message of sin Paul and just in that last section Phil we were starting to get into the issue of faith and the way that's been translated in different ways and what one significant thing that she feels is that it's been misunderstood that actually we're saved through the faithfulness of Christ rather than through our faith in Christ if you like a significant difference but depending on which way you translate that so what's what's your take on this what's what's Steve ultimately getting out in your view here what what is at stake when it comes to this particular way of seeing I think it's why I wasn't being contrary when I started by just checking which bits of Paul's writings do you believe Paul wrote and what's your attitude towards the scholars and do the scholars agree with you because I really would like to have a theological discussion about pista see they Chris do and about head to coast you know to yaizu and so on because I just find when people say all the scholars say it's it's what elitists do I'm not saying you are an elitist you I mean your social activism is be impeccable so I definitely wouldn't say that but when people say all the scholars say what they're basically what they can be saying is the average person cannot understand this and actually Martin Luther's revolution was that the average person can understand this and I think when you're when you're writing about this amazing insight that that pissed Asst Chris dude doesn't just mean the faith in Christ it also means the faithfulness of Christ this is Martin Luther's great discovery this is not something new that there are times when reading your book you're so excited about your new insights that sometimes I wonder whether how much you study Martin Luther at all Martin Luther's reading the Bible in Greek he's reading the New Testament in the original Greek he's translating it eventually into German so that the the average person doesn't need the scholars to tell that they can read the Word of God for themselves this is his passion and he comes to Romans 1 particularly where it's talking about the Dickerson heir to say the righteousness of God and his great insight is that it has two meanings not just one it doesn't just talk about faith in God or the righteousness that we can have before God it talks about the faithfulness of Jesus and the righteousness of Jesus given to us as a gift he takes our sin we receive his righteousness that was Martin Luther's revolution that he grasped not that it meant faith is what saves you but there he'd grassed that it was faith in the faithfulness of Christ that saves you in fact in order to do that you want to talk theology in order to do that he quotes from Habakkuk 2 which is fascinating because we have Habakkuk 2 in the Hebrew text we have Habakkuk 2 in the Septuagint Greek text and we also have a third reading which is the reading which Paul uses he doesn't quote from the Hebrew or the Grisha because the Greek changes the Hebrew slightly one of them emphasizes that the righteous will live by their faith the other one emphasizes that the righteous one will live by his faith or faithfulness and so Paul takes neither he uses deliberately ambiguous Greek in order to say he's quote from Habakkuk - is the righteous will live by pista faithfulness in other words he's saying it's about your faith but it's about your faith in Christ faithfulness so you present this as if it's it's something contrary to Luther and it's lies at the heart of Luther's revolution I think it is i with with respect I think he prefer use simplified Luther and I think that as you all know Phil Luther as he traveled through life he became an angrier mmm clearly a man in last 7 years yeah dreadful so I think I think I make this point in my book that the Third Reich the Nuremberg rallies actually reproduced some of his writings just to give out he became a Nazi hero because of his persecution of the Jews because he thought the Jews were all about works and so to try to cover it all up and say no yeah these understandings this man this man said that it that if a group if a German murdered a Jew that he said they're their books and my writings and their schools and their businesses and their houses should be taken from him which is why Hitler II published his writing but he said that even if it if if one if if a German murdered a Jew this would be a favor because these people so misunderstood what God was doing and so stood against it because they were so in their works well I think you're gonna defend it no I think Martin Luther's anti-semitism is quite undeniable yeah but please do not draw him out as therefore don't simplify this man who actually still today I think his legacy and is well I don't know I think it's you sleeper so to say all the Flyers raid the Nazis used with any what we might I want to make sure that people that are watching so I just say to people go yeah can I say one other thing Phil I don't say scholars this book has over 300 footnotes it points you to specific scholars I don't say all the stories you're - you were trying to say earlier Phil no one denies that Paul wrote these 13 people to a conversation if you don't know yes let's let's just just I think I just want to draw draw to a close what what's at stake here is it only because I think things I think we're gonna be asking this is okay this is the thing that's at stake okay it has Martin Luther misread Paul because this is what you state in your book Steve I think the nice read Paul Baddeley exactly that's what you certain of his writings he didn't necessary absolutely the Nazis quoted many people in order to justify their foreign babies Repub parsley flow from us for seven years ya know they quoted more than one feelin they only republish time but what you're doing if you're not careful and maybe you're doing a ton in turn is you're saying because Martin Luther was anti-semitic like his much of his culture in the sixteenth century therefore he misunderstood the gospel in the Reformation it's you that's oversimplifying Luther not me Luther profoundly understands the gospel Luther also profoundly is anti-semitic and there's no justification for it but to Lisa for theology that lady no no it wasn't it wasn't his understanding is Julius theology that led him to this no it was his interaction with Jewish cannot explain why I think this I mean and I just I can say why I think faith in Christ or faithfulness through Christ is so important that's what I want to get you really is it because at the end of the day over I'm hearing from Phil that okay actually Phil Martin Luther understood both sides of that coin it's about faith in the faithfulness of Christ you're saying no hang on he got something wrong here and and we need to write that yes and and is it your view that somehow people have then got the wrong end of the stick of about what failure is and this may well tie into the universalism discussion we're gonna have is it is it your view that actually we're all in because it's about what Christ has done and actually there's really there's none of us have to do anything to receive that yeah even the non-christian be in that sense yes I'd like to come on still okay about that the reason but moving on from there or sticking with it rather faith in Christ versus the faithfulness of Christ I think is really important I think it's really important because faith in Christ as we've just demonstrated is very sectarian the question then becomes how much faith do you need and have you got the right kind of faith so the Western Church is dogged by division dogged by people saying you're not really a Christian because you think this you don't have my kind of faith you have a different view to me about this so therefore you're not a Christian we know that's true I suffer from it every day I live my life in him it's broken way to serve Christ but I'm constantly told every day that I'm not a Christian etcetera etcetera why because faith in Christ becomes a thing that divides it divides the church at one end of the street from the church at the other end of the street because they look down on them because they got the wrong view about the Holy Spirit or because it's a Catholic Church and not a Protestant Church the faithfulness of Christ brings people together to create a harmony my faith isn't the same as yours I never actually never write to anyone I hope you've picked this up to say because you don't believe what I believe you're going to hell God will judge you you're not Christian I often find that thrown at me but I'm not particularly concerned about me I find it thrown at others and I think it comes out of a sectarian understanding if you've not got the right guy if it's all about faith you're going to have the right kind of faith in Christ or you doomed and I think that's what led Martin Luther to his vicious attack on the Jewish people I know which I'm clearly not defending it's bad theology at the heart it was caused by a theology what we're back on Graham where we agree Steve because I think when you talk about the sectarianism I agree with you when you talk about disunity I agree with you and I feel like your book tries to solve that genuine problem by creating a source of unity which is not the Christian gospel I think Martin Luther unwish will you see so judgmentalism Inc you know not being a Christian I'm not I'm norimaki and you've not being a Christian what I'm doing is I'm saying that some things are the Christian gospel and some things aren't the Christian gospel that's not being judgmental that's being discerning okay just mostly I say to what you feel is that it so easily becomes personalized and that's what led to the deaths of six and a half million Jews well one of the main contributing factors well all right discuss on anti-semitism but this NT of 6.5 know Leo density factor again these lenses studied and talked about observe a tidak round the world or linking it to the Gospel message he preached which i think is actually what what for you is the gospel that all right the version of the gospel you think Steve is is producing in this book and how does it different for what you see as well I think the reason why you're asking the question of Steve are you a Universalist and Steve not only is saying I'm not a Universe's but in the book itself says I'm not a universalism definitely endorsed what you're saying there the reason you're asking that question is because the inherent logic of your argument in the book is a Universalist one you essentially say but by by taking Martin Luther's understanding of pissed as Christie was two things the faithfulness of Christ he was faithful for us so that if we have faith in Christ we put our faith in his faithfulness we will be countered with in the people of God through his merits not our own because you divorce those two things and only took the faithfulness of Christ not the faith that we have in the faithfulness of Christ you end up in a position which where essentially you're saying because Christ is so great everyone will be saved in spite of themselves and there's a problem there in terms of the Justice of God if some if if someone says to God I do not I do not like you I do not believe in you I do not want to be with you you're saying that God overrules their their their decision there's an inherent logical problem with what you're saying because although you say I'm not a Universalist the Oxford Dictionary defines Universalist as someone who believes that all will be saved in the end and you actually in the sentence say I'm not a Universalist I follow Paul the great Universal Iser which is a wonderful line and as a result I believe that all will be saved in the end so you say you're not a Universalist but you follow Paul the universal Iser and you end up in a Universalist position that's why Justin's yes and certainly why I'm confused as well just so I can explain not many because we have we've we've arrived here now Vishu because about the last I'd say third of the book is is revolving around the issue of is there a hell if so what sort of hell is it you you you sketch out various sort of medieval views of a sort of eternal damnation and so on and say these were wrongheaded you you'd look at some of the biblical references you tackle annihilationism which is another view that perhaps that actually there's a final end to those who don't believe who don't receive God but it did appear to me that ultimately where you seem to settle in a lot of your arguments was that ultimately everyone will be saved through Christ now you may not technically call that universally maybe it's better labelled Christian universalism or something like that but but I couldn't escape the feeling and it was the same feeling I had when I had Rob Bell on this program in 2011 with his book Love Wins that even though he again backed off saying he was a universalist everything I read in the book said well it looks like you do believe a lot in the university salvation everyone in sand so so where do I think that the problem with the term universalism is it means different things to different people and that's why I don't might use in it and that's why I say I'm not a Universalist because everybody has a slightly different definition and you you know how many rooms do you sit in and you talk to somebody and you realize you're using the same words to mean different things I think that universalism has come to mean everyone's rescued everyone saved always up the mountain the positive leader Guardian etc say Jesus is just one you know to use a different metaphor that's off the news he's just one planet you know in the solar system but there's many other you know many other planets that God is the center I believe that that Paul is absolutely convinced Christ is the center by the way even my phrase I am NOT a Universalist but I do believe that Jesus is the reconcile over all isn't mine as I say in the books I'm not trying to claim it from us it's the phrase of Carl Bart that great theologian a genius and he was he was very deliberate now PhDs have been written about what Bart thought and didn't think etc cetera but I think of Carl Bart was he again I said it clear like I am NOT a universalist but I do believe that Christ is the center he is the reconciler of all that is what I believe I can explain why that so just to be absolutely clear than Steve you're not a Universalist in the sense of a pluralism where we are all paths lead to God yet but you are a universalist in the sense of Christ will ultimately save everyone yeah because Christ is the greatest really home what my God has done for Israel that has his division ker anyway because now right it's Christocentric tonight a big but I would simply knit I would simply slightly real able that that has Christian universalism if you aim that I clearly don't owe to think that's helpful because if I did I would have said it now at pains to point out the various of the people including someone we mentioned already Tom right don't go down that route o'the no Lee even though there's a measure of agreement in in various aspects he he actually said actually I think ultimately people will still have the choice to reject God and and that's just the way it is yeah but you obviously you feel that somehow yeah God will ultimately win everyone that there's going to be some love wins everyone right we've heard that phrase before so what was your response to our evil the weakest chapter of your book Steve is the one entitled oxymoron which is a chapter in which you essentially seek to redefine any word that Paul uses which disagrees with your person oh no no no you do I see entirely the other way around and I think that people have tried to redefine a case word weaponizing and use the Hmong people and less but being women for being divorce over being gay so know Paul's words have been weaponized and used in ways to exclude persons I believe that is many women speaking in your pain I hope that women are on your leadership team I hope that divorce people are included and I hope that LGBT people are celebrated for who they are and I think we began our discussion by saying I completely agree with you that the way I think Phyllis finishes and then yeah yes sorry right so you you're you were just saying the problem with words is that they mean different things to different people there is a solution to that yes called the dictionary yeah yeah no no don't laugh it is no cookie in Greek words just let me finish okay when the study in Greek words it's called a lexicon but it's essentially addiction yet and so when trying to work out should this be called universalism the Oxford Dictionary says universalism is the belief that every will be saved in the end so I think you have to use the term Universal it's all I would say all I would say about that one sentence then come back actually with you read a lot dictionaries you'll find that they don't also think so I'm using it and you can you can do that online so you can get Oxford and Cambridge etcetera all online in your final anyway I'm not a university lexicons yet because I'm not satisfied to say the scholars say the scholars say yeah because as you point out pH needs to be written on what car bath or unknown that can actually quite agree so I've studied a lot yeah I read the Bible in Greek every day I've studied the Greek language I've read lots of Greek Mexicans and none of them say anything remotely like what you claim Paul's words me in the chapter oxymoron so you say there were three mas meaning anger you say well this means intense emotion it can mean come in embarrassment she'd read some more then film critics Lee you should I just don't know how narrow your reading let's say anyway let's look at a great Mexican that's been constructed in the last 15 years to find one that gives me the reading that I'm satisfied with there's a property damage Tuttle okay anyway Aristotle is not a first-century Greek that's like saying that's like saying if you want to understand what words mean in today read Shakespeare assigned anachronisms de Phil I honestly have to say this I do think I know you not meaning to do it but you are misleading people about around how translation is done and how we build up our instead of words you can't dismiss Aristotle because he stands Aristotle is a huge influence on the New Testament isn't he his fall is a huge course he as Paul is reacting and responding to make this amazing Pyrenees news words in a continuous sense with those who came before him Harris don't say this as long as written in them you know your work no no works the work you've done I'm a mentor and I will just to bring a bit of orders yeah yeah obviously you're both really intense and want to get both your points across I'm just going to ask just fulfilled to be given a couple of minutes to explain so this specific issue the Roth slash anger issue you feel that Steve obviously makes a case in the book that he it's been misunderstood mistranslated very often absolutely and and that it's more like a an emotion like embarrassment or grief something like that and it's been wrong to understand God as having if you're like an intense anger against something surly you'll wonder you're just trying to flag to be okay is that when they're reading that chapter if they are reading that chapter and it feels like this is a good analysis of what Greek words mean it's nothing of the kind my main point is not about well know this how much all of you know no not in my view in the view of almost no I'm not gonna say the word scholars your work right no I'm gonna use the word Bible translator oh okay if I would strike there is not a single English Bible translation that translates the Greek word or gay yeah as anything other than wrath or anger I'm looking for one that says embarrassment or head in hands or slightly slightly ashamed of few years I can't find one okay and just just so we can connect the dots here what how does this relate to the universalism question that well we came out I think Steve the objection you had to just in suggestion that you should use the word the phrased Christian universalism for your position your objection was you don't like the word universalism yeah my objection is I really don't think it's Christian in the sense of something that Christ would have taught so you make a great point in your book Steve where you say Jesus wasn't a follower of Paul Paul was a follower of Jesus but then in almost the next paragraph you're saying Paul was a great include Jesus was a great include ur and Jesus was the great geez is the great include er but he also tells parable after parable of people being cast out gnashing of teeth he he tells parable the sheep and the goats where he talks about eternal life and eternal punishment and as Augustine says I'm sure you've read a gusting where he says these two phrases are used in parallel you cannot believe in eternal life without believing in eternal punishment based on Matthew 25 yeah what you're proposing in your book I don't think it's Paul because the only way you can arrive at it is by finding the books where Paul talks most clearly about Hell for example 2 Thessalonians 1 I'm not surprised that this is one of the disputed books in your view no in order to hold your view you have to eradicate 6 of 7 books even within the 7 there are passages you have to explain away in your book ok and you have to dissidents Paul from Jesus okay so in Phil's view there is clear evidence both from Jesus and all that we are talking about a separation ultimately of people whoo-hoo-hoo there is something exclusive yeah and so I understand that view and your view is as a I'm gonna use the word Christian University I think that helps to sum up where you are everyone will ultimately be saved through Christ you're what what where do you go to say that's not the best reading of so all in Jesus so what I what I would say is this working back to Jesus actually the first thing because I mention Augustine's simply because you talked about Augustine when Augustine wrote beginning in the fifth century he makes the point himself that the view that he has that some will be eternally punished isn't a widely held view within the church so working back from there why is he saying that because the scholars that he read and worked with and even those he knew in the school the theological the oldest theological school in the world actually Alexandria in Egypt where I went to speak recently it was amazing it was it closed for better than is reopened but the oldest theological school in the world up bike lemon and then Oregon talk there and etc etc they all held the view that everyone would be would be rescued saved in the end I quote them in my book and were often Oregon was often written off for this it's the same Oregon who told his first Paul didn't write hebrews of course he was written off a long time after his death by the Roman Imperial Church but him strangely when I was in Alexandria which was earlier this year the Anglican Church there of it there this icon as I went in so they do the Alpha coughs and all the rest of it I said who's that they seize Oregon the great theologian so if you read if you read the early church fathers and then you read through into an icy and Creed which was drawn up to combat you know views that were thought to be heretical I wrote this down isn't in my book but the Nicene Creed that's read by churches around the world still today's the second version of the Nicene Creed and it says this about Jesus and he will come again in glory to judge the living in the dead I believe that Christ comes to judge Paul teaches there and his kingdom will have no end then it goes on and says and I believe in the Holy Spirit but then it ends these are the last sentences I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the Dead and to the life of the world to come there is no mention of of condemnation there is no mention of torment all these things are introduced later and as Phil no are introduced into the western half of the church not the eastern half of the church well I'm gonna let you respond in just a moment Phil yeah I didn't talk about Jesus cuz you go to talk about can we still till the next as we're as long as you let me respond well Phil said about Jesus teaching about eternal punishment will come back I don't think he'd let's take one thing at a time alright but we're in the midst of a very lively discussion here an unbelievable Steve chalkin film or joining me has the church misunderstood simple come back for more very shortly if you listen to unbelievable Justin brierley on premier Christian radio and enjoy the conversations between Christians and skeptics then this is the perfect app for you for the latest updates podcasts videos articles bonus content and much more download premier unbelievable app today [Music] welcome back to the final part today's show I'm having a right job keeping these guys I'm too constructed a Steve joke of Phil board joining me but for a really lively interesting discussion and I appreciate the passion on both sides actually in today's discussion both of you have important things to bring to the table about the Apostle Paul and you're very different understandings of what exactly the message is ultimately and the thing that we've been debating just in the last section is essentially will everyone be saved through Christ I've chosen to call that Christian universalism for the sake of putting a label on it now we are going to talk about Jesus as well and what he said about hell and salvation but as far as Steve is concerned the early church fathers like origin and others and Indy pulled himself really weren't bothered will never talked really about Hell damnation there was a sense in which I think and and I think obviously Steven the book marshals other issues like the Colossians and elsewhere where it talks about that the the renewal of all things that there's this kind of there is this Universalist sort of treachery that that all things will be made you and everyone who at this point rejects God will one day see and be one so so what do you do with Paul those early church fathers right and then we'll talk about Jesus just really caution you I think you did it by mistake but I would not refer to the remaking of the heavens and the earth as a Universalist hope this is this this is somehow just kind of trying to interpret labware maybe stealing what I'm turning I don't if I'm if I'm getting why I wouldn't use the word either it's a Christian hope it's concrete hope I don't know if I'm getting through that easily what I'm trying to help people who are listening and trying to you know engage with your book to grasp is I don't feel like you're representing or gustan or Clement or Oregon in as they actually were I feel at worst it feels in your book as though you're plundering them for out of context quotes which will support your argument let me let me give a couple of examples Augustine you said is basically saying not everyone believes this what he's actually saying is he criticizes any Christian leader and he admits there are some but he criticizes any Christian leader who denies this as quite different from saying on one of many competing views similarly Clement and Oregon these men were great theologians but that aspect of both of their teaching was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431 the inner hero heretic church because it were condemned because the Imperial state driven Church you need taken on two you need to have more integrity than that when you say that Integra knows the entire change that the time was connected to the state this was later you should also 131 a yeah it's centuries later Panama Church is not in Oregon's lifetime it's centuries later by the Roman Church because they haven't had what they just what you're doing is you're you're late you're getting the early church fathers because the church was in some way connected to the Roman state that's just how things were in the fifth century it doesn't mean that the United ruling of the leaders of the fifth century church saying that this was her Etta so he's wrong so how do you but I don't want to take stuff how do you get from the church in the early years where no Christian would join an army to a church that to an army run by the imperial Catholics stay right where you had to be a Christian to join the army and kill people etc etc in other words I'm saying that you can't just say hey it was just the way it was what happened was much of the Western Church with the Eastern Church this not true of the Western Church was captured by the Imperial Catholic Roman Catholic Church of the day I'm not empty Catholic by the way is what that sure your carries it was those councils connected with that though it was councils that introduced this and and the Roman Catholic Church didn't introduce the understanding of perpetual punishment in hell until into the third source practice areas where we agree in the sanctuary perpetual punishment was introduced by the Roman Catholic that's not only untrue and I think you know I think we are straying back into areas where we agree we fundamentally disagree over the fact that you can't believe the fifth century church leaders because of their links with the stage I'm talking about Augustine I all I'm saying Phil is Augustine acknowledged that the that his wasn't even my majority view I think he would lead you to that conclusion of those words that in other ways I am where I think we agree is that we're talking about some of the dangers of what happens when the church and the state become too entwined or where church leaders try to win the approval of the culture which they're living in and you I can't think you'll deny this but the the biggest weakness of your book is that you say we're gonna we're gonna get rid of all the the cultural ways we've we've read Interpol we're going to look at him just through the lens of Jesus and we're gonna detach Paul from our culture we're gonna look at him in his culture we're gonna understand Paul as he's really meant to understand and he comes out as a 20-19 white liberal I like us so if I didn't response that actually in the first chapter of the book what I say is I want to start a conversation or continue a conversation I say both things in the first chapter then I say explicitly somewhere in the book I think you've even nicked a line from the book I say the problem with Luther for Luther Martin Luther is he turned Paul into a medieval Protestant at the problem and the dangerous we do the same dangers we turn Paul into a 21st century postmodern capitalist we mustn't do that we have to all work really hard constantly at big word again now hermeneutic which means we read him Paul for what he said rather than through now there ladings criticism here though is he sees you in the end what the Paul we get out of your book so happens to look an awful lot like the kind of moral moral sort of it you know but I'd say the pot well we little bit hold on when the others have got out of his epistles is the Paul who just happens to be misogynistic the Paul that just happens to be anti-gay the Paul that just happens to be anti women in leadership the Paul that just happens to be apartheid because Paul's writings were of course used by Stenning bashed the great University just north of Cape Town the kind of Oxford and Cambridge of of South Africa to produce an apartheid theology it was Genesis and pause quick response well and then I do want to get to Jesus so they got to apartheid through reading their thoughts into Paul I'm saying that when you read your exclusions of various people and your exclusions of there is people into leadership into Paul you have read your I'm trying to just point out to you and to others is that you are and obviously unwittingly doing exactly the same thing I'm not excluding anyone because I am a universalist remember your be exclude you're making a case I'm making us finishing so Jesus I'm just warning you to grass you know when you referred to 21st century you referred to the 21st century capitalists and there's something very very nose about the way that our inclusivity works no so I I think in my book I say that that you know I can't stand objectively aside from this I I think I say we're all soaked in consumerism we struggling we fight against it but we are soaked in this stuff but our job is to do the very hard work of trying to unearth yes what Paul says without ever saying I know for death nur and you are wrong so that's what I'm sayin this is what I'd like to bring to the conversation it's just a conversation but I don't know how much of a conversation it is because I'm I'm you're saying we need to do the hard work of understanding Paul and I think you know with some reason I'm saying to you I don't think you've done enough hard worker understanding the message by saying you you're so judgmental yeah it feels like if someone other than your ice no no no it's not I'm just bringing my view and I think again on the way here this morning different thing if I was asked to write a blog for an evangelical website and then somebody text me to say oh they've not accepted the blog because it written by me it's not about LGBT it's not about any of these issues it's just about it's about something come it completely wonderful but but he said it's because I wrote it and it's cuz I've got my name on Amex good this is where the exclusions have gonna fail I'm not excluding could I maybe just tell a little story yeah yeah okay in the summer of 1993 sees a long time ago now I was a young man I went to a Christian meeting when we all I went to a Christian meeting because my brother persuaded me I ought to I think he got I needed saving I did and there was an evangelist on the platform who preached from the life of Samson and they basically said God sees your sin and God's angry about your sin and the result of your sin unless you repent will be eternal separation from God in hell it was quite a scary sermon it changed my life I believe the preacher I gave my life to Jesus not out of fear of Hell but because the person talked about the holiness of God in a way that made me respect God in a way I never had before and I thought I have grieved God I have sinned against God I deserve hell and I need to repent and be forgiven through Jesus I gave my life to Jesus my life has never been the same Steve that preacher was you spiritual son you know we've not met in the twenty sixteen now you've learnt yet dad I'm what I'm trying to get to in some ways appeal to you over is you talk to me about a gospel which is well it's very different from the gospel in this bowl it meets and I believed you and it's transformed my life Steve and that's a wonderful thank you please preacher the guess what happened between 93 and today well so I would like to say first of all I it's not like I believe the gospel and I've abandoned it but since 1993 as as wonderful as you say that sermon was changing for me you've obviously gone on I believe I knew you've worked in your views have developed and changed we're all on a journey even if we say a view is final it's not final because we're changing and evolving all the time in fact I think that's what this whole unbelievable we're always open to discoveries exactly so we're moving and changing where I where I've come I still believe that I still believe that God is holy I'd like to I hope in that sermon I explained what the word holy made different other and etc etc but I believe that God is holy I believe that we've sinned and we get it wrong me chief amongst all of them screwing it up the whole time but I believe that God's love is utterly over whelming what's happened to me since 1993 many things but something I'm involved I've become involved in the last decade and a half well there's so many stories I can tell you we run 52 schools we have 30,000 500 students in our schools in England we have just been handed the opportunity to become we were talking about it together probably before the program started I can't remember a youth prison by government I'm involved in these things hugely I sat just yesterday with a young man in this country who is serving a life sentence he's 19 he's serving a life sentence just yesterday afternoon less than 24 hours from here he his case was well publicized he joined Isis didn't leave the country all that kind of stuff but was involved there for him that led to murder i sat and had this factor I didn't know I've thought he was a member of the staff in the institution I was in um I was told her he was afterwards because over time he has for the first time in his life been shown love consistent love therapeutic love love transforms that's what I learned from all our educational work love transforms put in the kid out the classroom and saying you're excluded because you were noisy doesn't do anything for them except make them hate school it doesn't deal with the issues that they face a deal with all this in my book love melts hatred love changes things that's the work I see and I've seen over these last 25 years or whatever it is since we last met so that's what I see I believe that God is love I believe what 1 Corinthians chapter 3 which I talk about love melts the fire of God's love melts away even the greatest resistance so I disagree with Tom right when tom says just tom says well actually in the end you know you we can I knew we know the argument well doesn't it in the end you can choose to reject Christ and in the end God will say was that you know your will be done so there you are you will be eternally X human in in in Tom's words and I'm saying Tom I'm sorry I've actually said it to Tom mostly Tom I have learned this that even my broken love a right inconsistent love when applied melts hardness and turns a life around so Paul says he says some of us build with gold and silver and we live well our salvation begins here some of us we it's it's crap do you know isn't it stubble etc but in the end through fire all say are safe and it was it was the Pope before this one the one that's still alive Ratzinger and who said the fire is Christ's redeeming love in a moment now the Eastern Church has always believed this with even we haven't got in so we been having a very Western very precious consumer side a little bit like and I will let you respond now but that Jesus sat down with yesterday yeah you wouldn't give him the same ultimatum that you maybe go Steve in 93 though that it's important that you now place your faith in Jesus Christ I would say I I would say this in I won't have the opportunity with this young man because I met him a short person once off but I would say with the young people that we work with who have been through hell many of them literally they've been through hell in their lives you know I would say that the good news for them is there is a God in the universe who is loved who Jesus reveals to us the God of love who embraces us and says to us you are loved now begin to live like it put off these habits put on those habits and I think that is the message of Paul well obviously what you say about God's love and and its power who can disagree and I think anyone has been disagreeing with that I think what we're asking is whether truth whether love speaks truth from time to time yes clearly it does Paul himself speaking the truth in love yeah yeah I'm just so grateful that in 93 you didn't love me by flattering me you spoke in a loving way but you were very clear well you were clear on who Jesus is I'm so clear about how Jesus in which why I'm trying to give got less clear on the way that Jesus would say to the rich young ruler sell everything or you can't follow me or would tell parables where he would talk about let's talk real decisions because I think what you do is you you not only shortchange the human that's listening to you and has a Salvation decision to make but you shortchange the justice of God the great theme of justice of God is that God won't it won't save us by might if it is at the expense of doing what's right I think that's to misunderstand judgment it is part the discussion I'm not saying I'm writing but I I'm saying that I think is to misunderstand the term justice when it's placed in the right in a poll because justice you see to the middle class to a 21st century you know Westerner justice the police marching humble over let's hope I've not done any speeding or something justice in the first century to these downtrodden people living in this state where the Romans were on every corner justice is what they craved everyone and my work for genuinely I'm not trying to saying it's like you saying you in my work not just in schools but you know we work around this country in other countries the poor crave justice the unheard long for justice and what Paul is saying is that God is holy he's other he's love he will bring justice to you redemption to you hope to you I think actually hope is another great theme in Paul's writing and we haven't got time to explore and I don't explore in the book but it was a chapter that I left now because I ran one other section one of the key verses in Paul in one of the books that you do think he wrote in I say it the beginning of the book because I don't wanna just appeal to a narrow band of people who happen to go in my order okay and have your view okay I want to appeal to a wide band of people who some people would say Phil wake up and read and realize that there are significant issues for us this is what you think all right got to coca saying that otherwise people who go away with the view and I don't think that Paul wrote this in the Romans three particularly verse 25 and 26 where it talks begins the chapter by talking about all of sinned and fallen short of the glory of God it's not just that the glory of God's hidden in us it is your gnarly needs to be revealed is that it needs to be redeemed yeah it comes to the point where it talks about the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for us is death and resurrection yeah death and resurrection yes and I totally agree with you the resurrection sometimes downplayed I think his resurrection that changed Paul's like the key verses yeah Romans 3 25 and 26 it says the reason Jesus had to die on the cross was so that God could be both just and the one who justifies the wicked in other words God has chosen to save us by right and not just by mind yeah the danger with with the message that you portray in the book is that it's not Paul's message because it's not just and the one who justifies the wicked it downplays wickedness at all and actually the whole that one of the massive themes of the Bible is that God's love will not make him turn a blind eye to his justice it will make him satisfies I would say that I totally understand what you're saying but I think it's a very Wisc Western very liberal view let me explain why I think it's a really it's hard to take you seriously when you've noted a Gustin you predicted liver you've rejected Calvin hey hey these are all such absolutist things I'm not rejected Augustine I've said all gasps century views have a more intelligent conversation then I've written off this person written off that but I'm not I've not let a lose much I say that's a very liberal view yes so why do I say that and I think it is a very 21st liberal view the point is you can have a very different view if you live in a DAP on a damp housing estate and your dad's in jail for murder and you end and you have no love from anyone you see the world very very very very differently and what I'm what I'm saying is that the very person we've been quoting in this besides Jesus but who I've not written off a man that says I am NOT a universalist but I do believe that Christ is the reconciler of all Carl bar took Hitler on our bar wasn't some pontificate er sitting in a study pondering through Greek words Carl bar took Hitler on the confessing Church Carl bar looked evil in the eye and dealt with it and still says I'm not a universalist in that general sense but I do believe that Christ is the reconciler of all in our liberalised world where we can all pontificate rather than deal with the harsh realities that lives that are broken and bringing them hope I think it's different Moltmann Jurgen Moltmann talked about judgment the day of judgment I think I quote him in the book he says I can't quote him accurately but he says I do in the book he says the day of God's judgment is the day of redemption for all those who were written off by everyone I think you're bringing us back to where we began understand I'm gonna say for last 5 minutes here when we thought about Jesus yeah okay I've gotta talk about Matthew 25 that very creative but I think you're bringing us back to where we began which is the the reason Carl Bart took on Hitler was not because he was a man out there who wasn't in a study looking at Greek words I think the reason he took on Hitler out there is because he was a man in a study looking at Greek words here in other words the the big danger which I think I'm appealing to you as a spiritual son I feel like you've fallen into is because of your fantastic social action work and it's amazing I wish I wish I'd done a fraction of it because it because of the problems in society that you're up against day to day which are commend you for you are looking to find an answer to those those problems you see and you are trying to read the answer that seems right to you into Paul and what I'm appealing for you to do is to love fall for Paul himself to discover an answer that might not be the answer you would have come up with which is you know which was a point of this discussion I guess well it I think the dangerous you will yeah you will lose the very answer the aid yeah and I understand you expect me to say you know for the hat fits wear it and see first hand what what you've really Steve you have obviously very importantly said we didn't get to the Jesus issue let's do that now so Jesus himself had words to say about ultimate people's ultimate state yeah and they're very often that has been interpreted as that he saw summers yeah and some people did he's looking the sheep and the goats and the sheep and goats okay 25 quick explanation of why you don't feel that's the best causing a game Phil would disagree with this but just go out there and type in the thing there's a lot written about those Greek phrases and those two Greek words they took with the words that we come out as eternal punishment written by the church in the West and in the east the eastern half of the church which we've left out of this discussion and there's there's those words aristotle others etc etc Plato use those words so we know what they mean and actually there's a huge body of opinion not Universal because it's not the scholars it is scholars however who would say but what Jesus it's more accurate and don't but in here it's more accurate to translate eternal punishment as a time of pruning a time of pruning which fits in what we've Paul says about judgment because he's a follower of Christ and the judgment is a pruning and all will be saved though they will be pruned through this fire so what I'm talking about is not Steve Joel kind of twisted it to mean this but there's a huge body of scholars just as there are those who would disagree with that Phil I guess one of them because of its already said who say that Jesus is talking about a time of prune in a limited time of pruning and indeed Gehenna which is some of the picture that Jesus is drawing on you know that's you know we've been a national of teeth in itself in the Old Testament books that I quote them again is a place that gets redeemed in the end all of the valleys of of Israel become redeemed in the day of the Lord everything becomes redeemed and taken up I so that's what I say and and I'm sure people will say yeah yeah but it doesn't say that do you see just like it doesn't say that bout roughly we just make this point right faith in Christ if you read the NIV Bible New International Version if you read that I think it was 1974 that it was first published in 75 something like that if you read that 75 74 version it says talking about this passage in Romans we're saved by our faith in Christ if you read the 1986 484 80s version it says you're saved by your faith in Christ if you read the 2011 version which is ever so easy to read because it's the version you always get online if you type in Romans 3 you'll find that the 2011 version says faith in Christ it's got a little letter you read down the bottom it says all the faithfulness of Christ my point is simply this the translators are getting smarter and they're moving forward they move him forward and Luther's translation never said faith in Christ and of course it could mean the faithfulness of Christ as well but what what is true is that William Tyndale's version said it Jerome's version said it Wickliffe version says it the AV says it now some people believe that the authorized version is the Word of God in the Word of God if it's the AV we're told that we are saved by the faith of Christ so now we may to go run in circles because this is the discussion we had earlier in the faithfulness subscribe that's a huge we're not gonna have a time object again I didn't think that I just don't think that he's good well we haven't got any more any more than think I mean yes second weakest chapter in the book is the one in I say that Jesus is eternal and what he means is temporary and what he says his destruction but what he really means is proven scholarship they'll do the work the refuge of the scoundrel in these kind of conversations shallow where you end up banging women preaching we're gonna read the Bible in a shallow where you say that only men can be elderly in a shallow way you push people out of your church because they got divorced whatever the reasons for that when you read the Bible in shallow where you condemn gay people to misery vice come I commend you for this that we must not allow people to weaponize the father he did parent loves and a parent never sister Chuck now I love you but if you really upset me I'll condemn you forever I've got four kids I'm sure you've got kids I know that a Father's love a parent's love goes on and on and these necklaces where are they again I think what your closing thoughts is you're you're just showing that your main agenda is you've seen that the that the words are pulled being weaponized by people wrongly I agree with you I want to fight that alongside you really the way then felt yes way that you are trying to fight them is actually by reading stuff into Paul which just isn't there and I think you are leaving whole chunks out of Paul because you come from a churchman ship that has been excluded I know you write this but I think you're the one that's leaving 6 out of 13 that's why this debate needs to continue so it's a wonderful thing it has already run quite long on today sherry thank you so much gentlemen I wish we could spend the whole afternoon probably further discussing whether but it's it's been a lively impassioned discussion today I appreciate both we've come from and thank you very much for bringing your all to this discussion if people wanna find out more about you where should they go fill your books and your I guess if they come to our church website every day dot uk' they'll get in touch with me alright and if people want to find the book it's obviously available wherever you get your Christian books members and online here there all right thank you very much well thank you Steve and Phil for joining me on the show today thank you thank you thanks Steve thank you thank you all are we happy to shake hands and swim for more conversations between Christians and skeptics subscribe to the unbelievable podcast and for more updates and bonus content sign up to the unbelievable newsletter you

Channel: Unbelievable?

Views: 29,639

Rating: 4.6074271 out of 5

Keywords: God, apologetics, Jesus, debate, steve chalke, phil moore, saint paul, tom wright, nt wright, universalism, salvation, unbelievable, christian radio christianity atheism philosophy faith theology, justin brierley, premier

Id: vNF81eNeoCg

Length: 84min 9sec (5049 seconds)

Published: Fri Oct 11 2019