Did they mishear God in the Old Testament? Steve Chalke vs Andrew Wilson debate #2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 фев 2019
- Progressive church leader Steve Chalke debates Old Testament laws, warfare and innerancy with New Frontiers theologian Andrew Wilson.
The 2nd of their 4 video debates on the Bible hosted by Justin Brierley from the Unbelievable? archives 2014.
Debate #1
Does the Bible contain errors? • Does the Bible contain...
For more debates, updates & bonus content sign up www.premier.org.uk/unbelievabl...
Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
Steve Chalke's statement "I view the whole Bible in light of Jesus" is just an excuse to force his liberal interpretation of Christ onto the whole Bible. When he says, "I have a very high view of Christ" he only means that HIS idea of who Christ is - which is an erroneous one - completely biases how he sees the entirety of scripture. "Well, this story must not be true, because MY Jesus wouldn't have done that." This approach doesn't work, because we don't come to the scripture with a view of Christ. We learn who Christ is by reading scripture.
Well said.
I think this is the forth episode with this two guys and snap he gives on emphasizing his high view of Jesus always to make a point like bro we appreciate your high regard for Jesus your not the only human who does that
Absolutely agree.
Steve Chalke is a prime example of someone reading ancient texts through modern Western eyes and making Jesus a hippie.
THANK YOU!!!!!
Equally, Andrew is guilty of reading the text through modern western eyes and making the ancient authors post-enlightenment, modern rationalists which they also weren't.
Nathan Prindler, agreed...spot on. Perfectly descripted.
Isn't Jesus' horrific suffering and death on the cross in my stead precisely the point of what it means to fall into the hands of a living and just God?!
It is most serious..and most literal..at the same time.
I agree with Andrew.
Thinking that the Bible represents an accurate description of Jesus and that you would be able to know anything about the actual person is wishful. The evidence is just not there to conclude what Jesus was like as confidently as most people do.
@@jeffczermanski2993 There’s actually PLENTY of scriptures that show us and describe what JESUS IS like!!!!! HE was full of compassion; unselfishness: loving, caring, long suffering , healing, doing many mighty works. Loyal to HIS true followers!!!! Without sin. HE was sooo incredibly brave to die for humanities sins on that cross!!!>. What HE was put through: having a crown of thorns put onto HIS head!!!!! Spat upon, scourged: hit on the face: HE willingly laid down HIS life for humanity!!!! HE is unchanging. Throughout these scriptures we read just how loving and completely unselfish HE WAS/ IS!!!>. HE NEVER PLEASED HIMSELF ON THIS EARTH/ BUT CAME TO DO THE WILL OF OUR HEAVENLY FATHER!!!!! How can you say/ we cannot know what HE IS LIKE!!!!!!
Steve Chalke's treatment of the Ananias and Sapphira account makes it clear that his overriding philosophical approach is to reinterpret all scripture through the lens of his understanding of what God would and would not do. It's essentially pushing an "Well, if I were God I would ..." filter onto all of scripture. On that alone, his entire exegesis is suspect.
Show in the text where it says God kills A & S or had anything to do with it? You have to read into the text what isn't there to conclude God killed them. The point of the story is to show how ungracious and unchristlike Peter was on this occasion!
Both men have strong convictions and are wanting to understand the Bible and apply it for today. Andrew Wilson is less fearful of offending today's society whereas Steve Chalke is wanting to make it more appealing. Steve in my mind goes far to far and the Bible loses its authority whereas Andrew let's the Bible have the authority it deserves.
Yes! I agree with you. Listening to Steve Chalke now makes me think of this verse: "To suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers, to say what their itching ears want to hear" 2 Timothy 4:3).
couldnt of said it better myself..steve likes to explain away the parts of the bible that people of critical of today by saying its mans interpretation
I don't think Steve main purpose is to make it more appealing. It is far more likely Steve is more interested in resolving the ages old question of the apparent conflict between the loving nature of God in the New Testament and the more "cruel" image of God in the Old Testament. You can't blame Steve for trying to resolve apparent conflicts in the Bible, even the most hardline Christians do that.
LoveYourNeighbour. Spot on my friend!
@@kevinrtres A number of the best defenders of Christianity today hold to evolution. Most of them do not feel compelled to support the LGB+ community. I do not know enough about Steve to make a judgement on whether or not he is a false teacher, but regardless, even false teachers couch falsehoods in truth. From what I remember seeing in the video, he simply seems like someone trying to find an interpretation that fixes "contradictions" in the Bible but has done a poor job doing so.
Andrew Wilson is spot-on! Carry on my Brother from across the pond.
Steve Chalke needs to repent of his willy-nilly interpretation method in which he reduces God down to some weak, soft humanist.
Listening to Andrew talk about scripture makes me well up with passion and joy for the word. I love his drive to have Steve explain his situation. To many people get away with peddling the false hermeneutic garbage and are never confronted with smart people that believe in the bible even and especially when it says, "and the lord said.."
Steve kept on contradicting himself and using the logical fallacy of anecdotal evidence to support his claim. Everytime he's backed into a corner he resorts to some random story.
Steve is a nice guy without any way to make sense of his own beliefs. I tracked with him in his explanations, but they literally just lead to, "When the Bible says nice things it's true, when it says hard things they were wrong." My goodness what a messy world he lives in.
No. He just tells us that in some cases men in the Bible got it wrong. Consider when Jesus says, "you have heard it say an eye for an eye, BUT I SAY..." That speaks loads. Jesus was saying it was WRONG to interpret what God was saying to the writers of the OT. You can't interpret this passage as 'Jesus was saying the application of an eye for an eye is unnecessary in the 1st century post-temple Judaism since I am here' or 'you misunderstood this passage.' He literally says "but I tell you" Matthew 5:38-48. Steve is right on this.
@@mountbrocken no
@@mountbrocken What do you mean “men got it wrong” in the OT in regard to the “eye for an eye” statement in the OT? Don’t you believe the OT is inspired? Btw, it’s a very advanced moral concept bc it means the punishment must fit the crime.
@@jonnyw82 Yes of course I believe the OT was inspired, as Jesus did. But Jesus was the one that made the statement, "you have heard it said...BUT I SAY..." What are we to make of this? Are we to say that God changed His mind? No. Therefore the best way to address this problem is to realize that YES the OT is inspired, but the men through whom the Word, the inspiration, of the Lord came to were not perfect. Thus, we need to read the OT through the lens of Jesus.
@@mountbrocken Very good. So what’s more likely, God didn’t ensure infallibility of the OT but he did ensure infallibility of NT or both the OT and NT are fallible?
Andrew Wilson brilliant, balanced and unashamed - leaves you trusting God and the Bible. Steve Chalke just leaves you puzzled and unclear about what he believes - very dangerous!
It's disgusting when he speaks. Steve is sitting here with a straight face trying to manipulate the conversation from his blundering statement about God striking down that husband and wife in Acts.
This story is an example of the consequences for deliberate sin, mentioned in the immediately preceding verses. Verses 27-29 speak about what is to be done to those who have sinned unintentionally (sacrifices and forgiveness for Israelites and sojourners). Verses 30-31 speak to the consequences for deliberate, defiant sin that despises God's word. Verses 32-36 are an example of those consequences. Given the nature of Hebrew literature, even in historical narrative, it is implied that the person picking up sticks was doing so defiantly, understanding God's word about the Sabbath, and is therefore in rebellion and blaspheming. It is about the consequences of a rebellious attitude toward the understood word of the Lord, not picking up sticks.
Your point is crucial to understanding Jesus because he was obedient and sanctified himself, and is the very foundation of nature of faith, which is from trust and shown in obedience.
And I don't think that's hard to realize it or understand when you take your own presuppositions out of the way. This has been stressful to watch. Smh
@@StopSignsAreReal my study of the gospels tells me that we are being invited into the Jews religion but in a spiritual way. So scripture is Old Testament, and that is the place to understand God. Romans 13:2 is clear, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves dam nation". If we repent, change our mind to God's, then we have reconciliation.
All I can say in response to Steve Chalke's argumentation is, "HUHHH?????"
Ryan try doing some reading .... it may help you understand.
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 read the Bible and believe it.
@@MSA-uj7cp 🤣
@@bernardofitzpatrick5403 whts funny its true
They need to come back and continue the conversation...
Steve's point is quite clear: whatever happens that goes against Jesus's teachings and life is not from God even if it is written "God did it". That doesn't make the Bible untrue. The Bible is true and accurate in the sense that it reports accurately how people viewed God, it does not report how God portrayed himself (unless the parts where it goes along with Jesus).
We are not bible followers, we are Jesus' disciples.
That's cruciform theology and I think that's right. I however do not agree with his other views, like homosexuality, and errors in the Bible, etc. That's huge heresy.
Jesus killed the Israelites in the dessert, that will be a shocker to Steve.
Can Steve answer a question directly? No need to ramble. It's a yes or no.
This is a very worthwhile subject for debate by 2 Christians who know the bible well but have a very different interpretation of the nature of God's righteous anger. Im just sorry that they gave Justin such a difficult job in facilitating the conversation by constantly interrupting each other in a way that we don't often see with the Christian v atheist debates. Get a grip guys!
“Did God really say...” that’s how Satan starts off his deception right from the beginning. This man is dangerous.
@Marianne Havisham It has nothing to do with asking questions of your faith, it is about doubt. Doubt is the opposite of faith and leads to disbelief, questioning and still applying faith leads to belief. Questioning and doubting leads to disbelief.
Excellent reference to the first instance of deception.
The problem is Jesus did both say and show that parts of the OT were wrong about God!
I really like both arguments. I have a very high view of all three men here
Nice. Overall I'm proud to call them brothers
This exchange is interesting, but very unsatisfying. It needed to be longer.
If only they were each given a set time, perhaps a minute, to answer Justin's questions/their interlocutor, while being protected from interruptions, then this debate would have been so much better and more profitibale to listen to. So much needless confusion due to a simple lack of ordered debate.
Also at the time of Jesus. The pharisees had a great deal of added laws to the law of Moses.
Having read through the comments, I'm surprised to find a lot are quite critical and narrow-minded. I have often heard said that the that the New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed by the New. Steve Chalke is quite right to say we should seek to see through the eyes of Jesus. I would like to remind the brethren to remember 1 Corinthian 13:8-12, and especially v. 9 "for we know in part". Listening to the two speakers, most commentators would like to divide one side from the other, but it's not such a sharp division as that. It has been said that we westerners tend to think with a Greek mentality, each thought being sharply divided from others, but the Hebrew mind is different. Steve Chalke is making a valuable contribution as to how the apparent differences between the God of the Old Testament can be reconciled with the God of the New Testament. More thought and consideration should be given to what he says.
A very frustrating dialogue, which Steve Chalke tried to dominate with his poor exegesis! The Law given to Israel revealed the absolute righteousness and justice of God against sin and rebellion, even though mercy was often shown rather than severe judgment. It had nothing to do with picking up sticks! And is not Jesus the Word, Yahweh, manifested in the flesh....the same One who gave the Law? He came to reveal the absolute Love and Grace of God by taking the ultimate death penalty for sin and rebellion. He Himself was slain....but rose again having satisfied the Justice of God. Pity this wasn't mentioned.
This kind of gibberish right here is why people are flocking into the Church. God is 100$ righteous for creating bad laws but he clears it all up with love when he chose to die as the only perfect sacrifice that could appease himself. If not for the fact that he is so perfect and loving and would not accept anything less perfect and loving than his own sacrifice we would still be killing people for picking sticks on the Sabbath. Now ain't that great? Also, add in Calvin's predestination where God knew exactly that he would do this before eternity and condemn people to hell after stoning them for no reason other than picking sticks on the Sabbath and we have a concoction that no sane person would swallow Scriptural literalism and penal substitution will be the end of evangelicalism in the West and I cannot wait. This 400-year experiment in absurdity has gone on far too long.
Jesus showed that God's 'justice' against sin and rebellion is always and only to forgive it. Sorry but you cannot both believe Jesus and some of the OT , one or the other was lying! By the way Yahweh isn't the Father of Jesus, Yahweh behaves exactly the opposite to the Father as revealed by Christ. Jesus did not die to satisfy the justice of God. He died to satisfy the desire of mankind for retribution, then responded with forgiveness!
I highly recommend that people look up what St Gregory of Nyssa said about the killing of the first-born of Egypt. This early Church leader made it clear that if a text contradicted the nature of God revealed in Christ, then its literal reading was other than the face value of the text.
This was an excellent conversation. Looking forward to the next two
But where are they? It's been 1 month.
Jesus will return as the lion of Judah,, picking up sticks on the sabbath will seems like child's play Steve. If he believes that God told Moses to kill this man then how can he say Jesus would essentially rebuke the father. After all Jesus made his relationship clear in John 14:7. They are one. Steve your in a bit of a knot.
Says no verse anywhere look at Revelation, when John turned to see the 'lion of Judah' what He saw was a weak slain lamb! Jesus is never the 'lion of Judah!' Jesus did not believe the Father killed anyone! He said only the enemy kills steals and destroys. Three things the Father will never do and has never done is kill , steal or destroy.
Interesting and important debate. I can completely understand Steve's thinking on some of these passages. My view is that gods nature is unchanging, Jesus is the most complete revelation of God. Therefore I have to go where the evidence about Jesus in the new testament (his words, life and death) leads me to conclude - that some of the passages spoken about is the people's understanding of god at the time, and not the a full revelation of god himself. The bible is a collection of books written by people which speak something peoples understanding of the wonder of the God we know. My view is that god as a relational god chose to write his story through the lives of people such as those in the bible, and therefore as people we often misinterpret things, make mistakes and are inherently flawed. I'm still wrestling with my view, and happy to hear what other people think - I think that with debates like this it is so important to approach one another's views with love and an understanding that each other are trying to take our faiths seriously.
I think both are wrong and the argument ends up being a pointless loop
Steve is trying to explain a view of the bible from his own perspective and is missing God’s perspective!
Build Something that's what you do too. You interpret it from your own subjective perspective because there is no god. The book is so inconsistent that scholars can't even agree on what it means. What other area of study has such disagreement among its scholars?
Jesus Christ is God's perspective and Jesus both said and showed that the OT had many wrong beliefs about God, that He corrected!
“God doesn’t slay you for picking up sticks” - that’s an example of oversimplifying situations.
The person knew that it was a command to rest, and disregarded God after seeing blatant miracles.
I still have no idea what Steve thinks happened with the Sabbath-breaker and Ananias and Saphira.
Also, enough with the vague, unspecific anecdotes. He can say anything happened and no one can pick him up on it.
Died of a sress related heart attack brought on by the ungracious and antichrist attitude of Peter. God had nothing to do with there death! God only gives life!
Interesting that the only thing they agree on was the assertion that Richard Dawkins was wrong!
Steve. How would then explain the flood? How would you explain Sodom and Gomorrah. How would you explain the Order to kill after disobeying God and creating a golden calf. Your picture of God does not make sense.
Jonathan Swanepoel there was never a global flood. Also there's no god
We are a Patriotic American family, her father is a disabled Veteran of The US Navy, I am a home maker who produces personal religous playlists, on the word of the lord for my remaining family. Da Deus Fortunate".
Great debate thank you
should have asked him about noah's flood!
Steve Chalke has created a humanist God in his own image. And a liberal Christ, who only exits in his own imagination. Well done Andrew for keeping your patience!
Why then does god not leave him?
The issue is that the text is to be understood at parts & taken literally at others. Then, add on these men saying why God does a thing. They are only stating opinions.
God seems to keep with the gravity of the event. Picking up sticks on the Sabbath is not an issue, unless you are establishing the Sabbath as Holy for the first time. Then, there is warrent for the punishment. Giving is important, but only would carry a death sentence, when the surrivival of the church in the beginning is key to the church existing later. The situation calls for that huge consequence, not the infraction in & of itself.
The issue is extrapolating the event into an absolute rule. When you forget the context, the Bible can be hard to stomach. These men are deeply looking into a puddle & postulating how deep the water must be because they see the sky in it, & that means there must be great depth there. I just think they are a bit of base & ignoring the basics of context in the passage.
They both are clearly faithful men, but they need to step back from their opinion. Theses narratives in the Bible, metaphorical or literal, have clear significance to God's plan. Great undertakings come with great consequences. It in no way suggests that you dive into that puddle to prove how deep you think it is.
You've just created a few paragraphs defending the murder of someone for an absurd reason. And then gone on to embrace moral relativity. When you find yourself having to make such excuses for your religion, then it's time for a rethink.
@@poppypalais3108 Shalom aleichem. Where do you read mackdmara is defending an absurd reason?
This is the problems with having so many different kinds of Christians ... taking the Logos and conforming it to their own . Nothing supernatural about that. I would like to see a solid catholic thomisic theologian on this show.
Sorry mate they're all in prison for child rape
@@asaturner4097 Child rape rates are higher among family members, they still around.
So Steve Chalke is basically the British Andy Stanley?
I feel like Steve just needs to read Romans to understand why the law was given and to see God's purpose was through that. God related to Israel under the law covenant, we are under a different covenant. He seems in denial because he doesn't understand the covenants.
So never mind what Jesus says about the law?
It's not an issue of different covenants , it's an issue of the nature of God. Is God unconditional love by nature or a genocidal psychopath! I believe God is literally incapable of the things ascribed to Him in the OT ! Unconditional love does not order the slaughter of babies! not for any reason!
I know this is 2 years old but it is still desperately sad to hear in this discussion how Steve has transformed Jesus into an image of his own making. It is idolatry founded upon 21st century humanistic love for people but not God's love. He has allowed his heartfelt emotion moved by people's pain and circumstances to guide and form his theology, and in doing so He has transformed the God of the Bible into a God Who is only kind, gracious, merciful and forgiving in His love for people, but doesn't ever express anger or justice meted out by judgement in punishment because of sin.
He has forgotten that Jesus spoke about hell and the lake of fire more than anyone else and that it is the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ Who will be the dispenser of final judgement of us all at His judgement seat, because all power and authority has been given to Him by the Father to do so.
He is God our SAVIOUR in His loving kindness and is also LORD Who holds the keys to DEATH and HADES....and Jesus came in sacrificial love to rescue us from the unimaginable WRATH of God that is coming upon all creation because of our sin.
It's those who have taken the things ascribed to God in the OT that are making God in the image of man! Steve is getting His view of God from Jesus Christ. You CANNOT both believe Jesus and the OT! An 8 year old with a mobile can discover that the word 'wrath' is a terrible translation of a Greek word that is the opposite of anger and displeasure! No one needed rescuing from God! God has no record of any sin teaches Paul!
Amen.
I wish Steve wouldn’t interrupt so much. I personally may be closer to his interpretation than Andrews, and I do think he could do without all of those disclaimers about his intentions with the text. It just takes up too much talking time.
It can be safely assumed both of them seek to do the scriptures justice, even if they disagree. If he lets the other party unfold an explanation, there will be time a minute or two later to respond.
14:18 what Steven Chaulk doesn't understand, which was the point that Andrew was making was that Israel was a different group of people then the Israel that lived 1600 years later in Jerusalem, and God made certain concessions with Moses because of the hardness of the heart of Israel at that time. What's not properly understood is that the Israelites were actually Egyptians, because of how many generations they had lived in Egypt under Pharaoh, and the heart condition of their leader was the same heart condition that they had while they were in bondage, and after they were freed.
Sometimes there are conflicts in the text because it is meant to be, for the meaning comes out, not always as "answers to questions". In our vanity, we fall in love with our respective Master List of Inquiry, like the invasiveness of an interrogator; rather than to be Open to Discovery, like the wonderment of a child.
Good talk I can see from both sides
If Andrew wilson is saying that this kind of punishement was normal at that time, does God change his morality through development of human mind & moral ? Would God do it in this time ? If the answer is No, this means God's moral compass changes. And Why God wouldn't teach them the real morality (if there is) for human beings in all of humam generations ?
Timothy wasn't written by Paul?
These guys interrupt each other so much that it’s difficult to listen to. Which is unfortunate because this discussion has a lot of interesting content.
Wow, Justin did well trying to navigate that conversation.. lol
If Steve would ask the Lord to open his eyes and his mind he'd have wisdom to understand the things he's reasoning. James 1: 5-8
I prefer Steve's point that God doesn't command death over trivia.
How can you acknowledge half of these arguments and claim that gods moral standard is objectively absolute? This is by definition a subjective application of moralaty that is tethered to specific groups of people at specific times. And how could you claim inerrancy of the texts if moses "heard god wrong"? If he heard it wrong and wrote it as he heard then his writings of the texts weren't god breathed because they don't reflect perfection by any means
Thank you for the lively discussion, gentelmen. I wish Steve Chalke would have a bit more guts to say what he really thinks, and Andrew Wilson, well it looks like he would seek to explain away any and all critical thinking that my have the slightest hint of questioning or discussing the bible's inerancy.
Well said Andrew, and sad to see how Steve Chalke has moved away from the purposes and character of God as revealed in the Torah. Sorry Steve, but you're being quite patronising towards Andrew, and the problem in your position is that you then become the interpreter of what the books of the Bible are saying. This is not a good place to be. We all have questions, but it is better to allow God the Holy Spirit to bring understanding as we concentrate on seeking to become more Christlike..
God brought the Israelites out of pagan Egypt after 400+ years and set about teaching them what kind of a God He is. He had to teach them that He was both holy and righteous. Had He started off with Compassion and forgiveness the people would have been no different to all the peoples and religions around them.
God wanted the Israelites to understand that not only was He a God of deliverance, of miracles of provision, but He is also holy and punished people according to His laws. Those who loved Him and sought to be obedient found forgiveness because they understood the nature of God.
Then eventually we look forward to Jeremiah 31:31! But God remains holy, righteous and compassionate, and wants us to be obedient.
Please let Steve Chalke finish what he has to say. Their voices are different, and penetration is different, and I was able to hear what Andrew said each time, but when he interrupts Steve, I am unable to hear what Steve is trying to explain.
The reason for that was that SC’s response to a direct question was to go on a rambling narrative as far away from the question as quickly as possible by talking in vague generalities and choosing a new example. Andrew was simply trying to bring Steve back to the question in order to get an answer which SC refused to do by dint of his responses. It was a bit like watching someone trying to get a cat to ‘sit’ when it has other ideas.
11:00 The man was killed on the sabbath, because They literally just passed the law against working on the sabbath, and this guy did just that, clearly we we weren't there, but obviously the man flouted the law. Also, Paul tells us about the harshness of God's law, when you would be pt to death just on the testimony of 2-3 witnesses for breaking any of the laws. But now we enter into God's grace, and have forgiveness of sin. God mercy, although was written into the law, it was not fully understood at the establishing of his law, but rather at the end of the law.
CanadianLoveKnot so why do Christian societies still put people to death for breaking laws? Where's all that grace today?
Jesus told someone to work on the Sabbath, pick up your bed and walk...
So what Steve Chalke is saying in relation to the story of Ananias and Saphira is on the one hand ‘I believe the text’ i.e. I believe that Ananias and Saphira died, and on the other hand ‘I don’t believe the text’ in that I don’t believe they were struck down by the Holy Spirit (because I don’t believe that’s what Jesus would do - even though that’s what the text says happened). Which is surely a hermeneutic of I will believe what I want to believe on the basis of whether I think it’s true or not. Which makes you the ultimate arbiter of truth. How is that coherent with the gospel?
"She may have had a heart condition ": Steve Chalke.
Yes. But , no........
They didn't really discuss difficult scriptures nor answered much so here is a scripture conundrum from scripture. It concerns the ten commandments and in Exodus 34 God writes the ten commandments on two tablets of stone and declares his Covenant based on the Law that God was giving to Moses that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant and was carried into battle and resided in the Temple in the Holy of Holy's. You can check your own Bibles but here is a copy and paste from the King James Bible of what the ten commandments were....
Commandment One:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
Commandment Two:
17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
Commandment Three:
18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
commandment Four:
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
Commandment Five:
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
Commandment Six:
22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
Commandment Seven:
23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year.
Commandment Eight:
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
Commandment Nine:
26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
Commandment Ten:
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
So stating the obvious these are not the Ten Commandments we know and believe to be the Covenant that God made with Moses and mankind so did God get it wrong and someone had to update God's law which he wrote in stone or are these the actual Ten Commandments?
Eventually church will not recognize sin
Agree. Very disgusting to listen to this false teacher on the left justify all the abominations that God despises.
Listen to this weasel with a straight face babble on about how it's a coincidence that they were struck down.
No mention of the Church Fathers, Philo, Origen or the core principles of exegesis . Biblical inerrancy is rooted in one, the historical literal narrative, and secondly the three spiritual senses. The principles of exegesis and spiritual interpretation are rooted in allegory, morality and analogy. Scripture reflects our Creator, Saviour, Redeemer, the Word made flesh, in that it is fully human and fully divine. That relationship of 'Unity', extends across time and history to the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church; fully human and fully divine. Ne Timeas.
God takes His Holiness very seriously, He takes obedience very seriously. The path to God takes great value, and comes with great cost, complete commitment. The wages of sin is death period. We are all deserving to be wiped out and receive the whole wrath of God. Be Jesus intercedes, as Moses did for the people. Word of advice, Take God serious, He means what He has said. The fear of God is the Beginning of wisdom.
you say nothing of love! obedience, death, sin, wiped out, wrath, fear. Jesus is God so he punished himself for rules he made himself.
Unbiblcal antichrist nonsense! Perfect love ( God ) casts out ALL fear!
Oh my gosh. Andrew needs to control his emotions, because he can’t help but keep interrupting upset. Steve needs to clarify his ideas better. This is just brutal to watch, almost like the first debate between Trump and Biden.
I see the unpleasant moments in the OT in light of all the mercy there as well. Worried about what happened in the conquest of Canaan? That must be weighed against the way God deals with Nineveh -- and that's no accident, as one "greater than Jonah" surely arrived one day. As for the stoning of the sabbath breaker, how many times did that actually happen?
God is infinitely patient, but sometimes he has no choice but to bust heads. He is a consuming fire, as the author of Hebrews says, and none of that has changed. His nature is unchanged towards sin, but fortunately for us, the means of reconciliation have utterly changed, thanks to what he accomplish on the cross -- for us, of all people.
The idea that God "doesn't strike people down," makes the atonement no big deal. But it is a big deal, as I am amazed that he didn't completely shred us all by now.
It is pretty simple: the bible offers two gods appearing in apparently one person. Other holy books have the same scenario as well, We all have the choice to follow the good, kind, forgiving God or we can follow that harsh, punishing rule maker.
Regarding Ananius and Saphira nothing in the text says that God struck them down , you have to read what isn't into the text to get that. The whole story was to show how unchristlike, ungracious, Peter was and how badly blown it. If anything contributed to their death it was Peter's harsh treatment of them.
Steve May have some valuable points - but he lacks the ability to cohesively and cogently present his position. Maybe he’s a good writer, it should avoid debate.
Could you please upload a version without the grating background music, it drives me nuts and I can't listen to the podcast :/
I agree, it was annoying and unnecessary
He knew the law and deliberately broke the law the same way Adam disobey God and was punished he know that he broke the law the rule maker will also have a right to make us pay for disobedient trust Him to do the right thing don’t judge God trust him ,Jesus is God and he never changes so you can not talk of him as a different God stop trying to make God in your image
Steve Chalke - nice guy, not the best at arguing with someone interrupting him every few seconds.
Andrew Wilson - good at arguing, but shows how genuinely unpleasant his form of Christianity is with his God, slayer of humans because they don't pay enough money into the tithing box.
I would rather side with hard truth as opposed to comforting lies
We become the God we worship
I’m pretty sure that’s not what AW was saying.
The text is historical, and I believe it’s true.
God spoke to Moses in the text.
I don’t think God is like that.
This is Steve Chalke’s whole problem.
Completely wrong Steve believes Jesus Christ showed that God isn't lke as portrayed in the OT!
For 2000 years ... if this is the path to truth ... God help us?
How ironic are the majority of comments about viewing through a western view? When hes doing the opposite. Imagine living back then. Its impossible for us to understand exactly how life was bc language has changed, location, roles, daily life, food, animals, everything was not the same as it is now. Hes saying God gave the word to the ppl that they needed at that time. He understands that times change so he sends the message we need when we need it in a way we can comprehend it. The essence and core of Jesus is the spirit of God and that will never change. If you follow the path of Jesus, theres no way to go wrong. God knew we learn by example.
Nonsensical Q. If you can mishear what God says and God allowed to corrupt his original message, he could not be God Almighty. God would then place himself in the hands (or rather ears) of men.
One of the reasons god kills the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath is because there's no mercy in the law, this is what Christ is showing with the adulterous woman, when a person is under the law there is no compassion or understanding there is just the law, nothing else actually exists, you cannot see the truth that is in front of your face or the truth of anything else because it doesn't come into the power of the law, the law is simply the law, so if the law says you break the law and the punishment is death you simply produce death, because you are under the law, the law has become God, this is the issue Christ is showing when he comes along to remove the law, the law removes you from understanding or seeing the truth, and acting out of compassion, love, when you are rigid to the law you have none of these values, the law has no heart, it has no mercy, it is just simply the law, and when people use the word of God and make it law, they are not under grace now they are just simply under the law,
Steve Chalke serially fails to answer Andrew’s question, particularly about Ananias and Zophira and when pressed a) goes to generic comments and then b) moves on to a different example without resolving the question as asked. This in itself, objectively, seems to me to demonstrate that Andrew’s position is the clearer (whether you agree with it or not) and more well thought out. Also, Steve Chalke seems to me to interrupt his co-speaker far more often and to redirect the conversation. I found this both fascinating and immensely frustrating that, it seems to me, Steve Chalke was not able to defend his position even in a way that you could objectively disagree with him because every time he was pressed he shifted on to something else or talked in vague general terms. He never defined his meaning, other than to say the Bible is a library, seemingly to imply that it doesn’t hang together as a whole. And while he is technically correct it is a library, it is also a single story in that it cohesively tells the story of humanity from beginning to end without contradiction. I agree with Andrew that where we find seeming contradiction, it is we who need to grapple with the text to seek the meaning within.
I think Steve views God with human standards, with humans we weigh sins into categories, those we call mere sins and serious sins, if I steal a coin from a man's pocket and someone robs a bank in our human nature we would say the one who robbed the bank is more sinful or the worst sinner but considering that God is holy and has no blemish then I would conclude that sin is sin to Him, our sins are on equal footing with him and so as much as the man who picked sticks or Lot's wife who was turned to a pillar of salt for merely looking back those people are on equal footing with a murderer to a God who is holy I mean to say he is holy is to mean he is set apart and has no sin in him and so if has no sin in him his judgment upon sin is a srs issue.
Here is how Paul describes what holiness looks like 'love joy, peace, patience etc. Jesus showed that God only ever forgives sin and evil never punishes it. Plus Jesus said sin was like a sickness He came to heal, not a crime to punish! Jesus actually told someone to pick up sticks on the Sabbath , making it impossible for God to have ordered the guy to be killed in the OT!
Adam chose to reject Gods way of putting people right with himself which is faith, confidence, trust in our union with our creator and through that union which they created to fill us with themselves, he chose instead to be like God thru a knowledge of good and evil Rom.2:20 the consequences of which is death as the purpose of the law and the tree is to condemn or convince of sinfulness . Life comes thru faith in them doing their job in us. The old covenant is the ministration of death the fulfillment of Adams' choice, it was brutal and cruel and produced death which Adam was warned it would. The approved way is much better and leads to eternal life. That is manifested to us in our creator Jesus the one who accepts our suicide into himself and gives us more life. It is a hard way to learn though.
Steve seems like a nice guy but is incoherent and at times nonsensical with his beliefs/arguments.
When God says "kill them all," is he necessarily saying "I want you to kill them all, that would be good?" Could this be part of the lesson the bible teaches us about how God functions and interacts and directs us and the world? God may not have advised on these situations to encourage an otherwise peaceful tribe to kill. If one's conception of God's interaction with us is less "Zeus throwing thunderbolts and fomenting tribalism" and more "the medium within which all that exists and happens comes to be," then we can understand that the suffering involved in the path we chose is being affirmed/allowed by God but not chosen by Him as what ought to be done or is ideal or good. Not that God is the pantheistic new age "God = the universe" but that we only see that part of Him in our "fallen" state. Might God have told Moses to do what leads to the most humane, if you will, of all possible ways forward? Maybe God would tell you, "yeah, that was all awful stuff that I had them do," rather than "killing entire tribes is good cause I said so."
Maybe think of a father forcing a son to drink ipecac to induce vomiting. Drinking ipecac is not a good thing, it's not good for you, it will hurt you, it's painful and generally undesirable, let's say harmful, but we have ingested a poison (separation from God). Perhaps God doesn't desire to avenge His wounded ego or crush those oppose him as much as He directs us through the process of vomiting up the poison of what is, to us, an entirely unintelligible clusterfudge of causes and effects. Not understanding some of this may be more plausible than the OT folks getting their instructions mixed up so bad they heard kill your neighbor when God said love your neighbor. Still, it would require adjustments for many Christians to understand how God might instruct us to do something that is bad or, stated differently, just because God said to do it doesn't mean he would say it's good or right, although it'd be justified.
Oh SC has a higher view of the bible, who does he think he is. it's all about mental assent than being in the Spirit on the Lords day
They needed a ball.... Now the one who has the ball can speak then you pass it...
So how does Steve interpret Revaluation, and final judgment. he wants to paint God is some Disney character because of his feelings, he's feelings don't get to dictate what is actual truth
I THINK....I IS ON THE THRONE. PLEASE.
“I have no doubt that historically happened.”??.....funny stuff men. Might as well be discussing Lord of the Rings. I get the feeling the moderator was a little embarrassed for them.
You presume too much.
@@michaeldukes4108 you're probably right ;)
The guy on the left seems to forget that Jesus IS the God of the Old Testament.
Charles King if he's the same person he suffers from multiple personality disorder
@@JL0007 and he is capable of the most petty emotions! Kills people on a whim. God is psychotic!
That's exactly why he interprets contradictory old testament scripture through Jesus. You are proving his point.
Wow this is crazy. Steve just cannot be pinned down. He has made God in his own image
I like Steve Chalke. I lost my faith due to the pernicious fundamentalism I was exposed to. God is a nasty piece of work at times in the OT.
Or you need to more fully understand God's whole character. He is never a nasty piece or work.
we are the nasty ones, my friend
@@SSJCyan It's a shame you feel that Kevin. I know some lovely people.
Either genocide is ok or it isn’t. Either God did it, or the people were wrong. There is no other option.
The complexity of reading scripture. One being honest. The other being a hero, 'It's inerrant.......you're not even a real Christian.'
Even if you hold the erroneous view that the Bible is inerrant, then who has the final authority to interpret it, but more fallible humans. The evidence is in the failure of the Catholic Church to give perfect interpretation, see history, and the fact there are many denomations of Christian thought. Therefore, each person is ultimately responsible for their faith, i.e., knowledge of scriptures, the nature of reality, and their relationship with God
They didn't really discuss difficult scriptures nor answered much o here is a scripture conundrum from scripture. It concerns the ten commandments and in Exodus 34 God writes the ten commandments on two tablets of stone and declares his Covenant based on the Law that God was giving to Moses that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant and was carried into battle and resided in the Temple in the Holy of Holy's. You can check your own Bibles but here is a copy and paste from the King James Bible of what the ten commandments were....
Commandment One:
14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
Commandment Two:
17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
Commandment Three:
18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
commandment Four:
19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
Commandment Five:
21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
Commandment Six:
22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
Commandment Seven:
23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.
24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year.
Commandment Eight:
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
Commandment Nine:
26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
Commandment Ten:
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
So stating the obvious these are not the Ten Commandments we know and believe to be the Covenant that God made with Moses and mankind so did God get it wrong and someone had to update God's law which he wrote in stone or are these the actual Ten Commandments?
On Moses and the sticks- yes I agree with the right (which I typically do not). God has to make harsh decisions to make the church what it is today, as disciplining a child. The decision was still made out of LOVE. JESUS would NOT have done this, years and years later as the church had progressed since then, to Gods intentions. God mourned the soul picking up sticks (just as he did his own sons), but it HAD TO BE DONE to shape humanity's mind to the church GOD AND JESUS intended. But if this happened, and was prominently recorded as moses' convo between God, that was not misrecorded in the Bible, I dont believe. It happened, and it had to, at Gods remorse...
Steve Chalke cannot go any further after openly denying the truth of scripture. Such a shame!
I think poor Steve’s very confused!!!! We need an hour long debate!! NO GOD hasn’t struck US down; BUT we will ALL stand before HIM on judgement day!!!! The Old Testament said they were struck down Steve / so yes: they WERE struck down!!!!
Oh God Steve. Just say it lol! No. God did not strike Ananias and Sapphira down!
The same tough love God of the OT sent his Son to show us how to show faith, because there is obedience required so that we can be forgiven, so whatever is considered sin we must not do. Jesus is the way to God by being a servant to God being godly, and death is the consequence of disobedience, and that is the message. Jesus sanctified himself and so should we.
If you have to obey in order to be forgiven , then it's not forgiveness , forgiveness is a free gift requiring nothing!
@@martinfell9165 Repent for the forgiveness of sins, as Luke 24:47.
The obedience of faith is the running theme of Romans, who wrongly thought grace was a licence to sin.
In the last year I have made a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity', as I expose errors in Christianity.
If you forgive without the restoration of trust through repentance you have agreed with the sin.
@@simonskinner1450 In the NT repentance is a change of mind in order to experience what is already true. We repent in order to see and experience we are already forgiven. No where in the gospels does Jesus ask for repentance before forgiving someone!
@@martinfell9165 I shall be kind and give you one more instance, although there are more in the 28 videos I have made.
Matthew 18:15-17. No repentance makes you an unbeliever in the sight of God.
@@simonskinner1450 Was Mathew 18 spoken to people still under the old covenant or the New!
I think Steve Chalke has a better understanding of the Bible than Andrew Wilson. I may not agree with things both of them say.
"The bible presents more complex pictures than we are allowed ..." said the man with an incredibly reductive and factualised overview. Protestants time and time again making literal interpretations losing sight of Jesus which is the point Steve makes (albeit poorly but within a brainwashed and societally deranged protestant evangelism). There is a lot I do not agree with from both parties, but the real loser here is debate. These two could continue arguing till the cows come home because their perspectives are so misaligned that only restoration with the one true original church offers any true resolution. I'm grateful that this is widely available as all three of you have revealed how farcical western christianity is. Thank you.
These kinds of issues is exactly why I have concluded that the Bible is a man made document(s). It doesn't make good sense.
I respect Andrew as a person , but anyone who thinks God ordered someone to be killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath , has not yet met the Father as revealed by Christ. The Father has never taken a human life or commanded others to do things. Jesus actually commands someone to 'pick up your bed and walk' ( in effect picking up sticks on the Sabbath) the same thing that Moses said God told him to kill a man for!
So what happened to Pharaoh and the Egyptians? Just asking.