Seven More Points About The Shack
Here are seven more points about The Shack to amend to my review a couple of days ago. (I did not really want to do this, but I should have known this was coming!)
- Concerning the supposed bad attitude toward Christians and the church: First off, there is no problem being critical of the church. If I remember correctly, Christ was pretty critical of it in the book of Revelation. Also, if we rejected everyone who does such, then we better take another look at the reformers. Besides, (and most importantly) the bad attitude expressed in the book was BEFORE his encounter with God. At that time he also hated God!!!! Things changed…that is the point of the book! We have no knowledge of Mack’s attitude of Christians and the church after his “recovery.”
- Statements in the book may indicate that Young is an inclusivist (i.e. Christ is the only way to God, but the Gospel is not the only way to Christ). If so, I would think that this is the closest position that he holds to that pushes the orthodox line. In doing so he would join C.S. Lewis, the whole Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas, Gregory Boyd, and others. I am not an inclusivist, but there are some very good people who lean in that direction.
- Concerning the charge of modalism: this concept could not be denied any more clearly in the book. From the book: “We are not three gods, and we are not talking about one god with three attitudes, like a man who is a husband, father, and worker. I am one God and I am three persons, and each of the three is fully and entirely one.” It does not get any better than that! Then it says that “we were all in Jesus” during the incarnation. Then people forget that he has clearly just denied modalism and go ahead and make the charge. This is silly folks. We have to be more responsible when evaluating such things, at the pain of tarnishing reputation in a completely ill-founded way. This statement “we are all in Jesus” is very orthodox considering the context in which he has denied modalism. He is just being more Eastern in his expression here, following the Great Cappidocian Father (whom I am sure people could take out of context and blast as modalists too—sigh . . .). We need to understand a concept called perichoresis or mutual indwelling (look it up). In this very orthodox way of describing things, there is a very real sense in which the person of the Trinity mutually indwell one another—they are all in each other while remaining separate persons. In fact, if you were to deny this, you would be unorthodox!! Ironically, I think that Young’s orthodox theological astuteness might have caught many people off guard.
- Remember, anytime one tries to personify God there are going to be issues with those who want to take it too literally. We don’t get a free pass by simply saying it is fiction, I know (and advocates of the book need to quite using the “its fiction” card to liberally). But you try to write a fictional about the Trinity. Better, just think too long about the Trinity. You will end up with some type of unorthodox nuance. That is why I said in my original review, I wish he would have been a little more apophatic about things. However, I don’t have any suggestions on how to present the Trinity and stay out of danger. The only ultimate solution is not to describe the Trinity at all!
- We should never be relying on books such as this to educate the church in basic theology. If we have gotten to that point where someone is in danger of misreading this and becoming a modalist, shame on us. But let us not simply attack these type of books. Let’s just use them to illustrate and stretch us. There will never be a perfect analogy of God—ever!
- Let’s face it, people just get uptight when something gets too popular, ala Left Behind. If it is too popular, Satan must have inspired it. I get tired of this mentality. I say lay off Left Behind and lay off The Shack. Both present a certain theology, both have elements that good Christians are going to disagree with, but neither are THAT dangerous. Just make sure that people are properly discipled. If they are relying on either of these books for their discipleship, again, we have big problems.
- I would have loved to have seen more of the fear of God in this book. I know Christ came to sinners with a message of love and forgiveness. Yet when Isaiah saw God he fell apart. He could have (should have) included both, but focusing on one is not necessarily heresy.
Look, I am not saying I agree with all of this dude’s theology. I could take him apart piece by piece with the significance of his Arminianism assumptions and make it sound as if what he is teaching is going to topple the faith, but that would be dishonest and lack wisdom and perspective. All I am saying is that I don’t see any major line being crossed.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Crossing the Heretical Line
- The Shack: Liking it Won't Send You to Hell
- Where I stand on all things 2
- Must One Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?
- "The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements
Print This Post
Loading ...
dac on 20 Apr 2009 at 7:46 am #
What I love about this whole Shack kerfluffle is that many of those who hate the book because of the theology love TV shows such as 24 – you know, the one that answers the burning question, “WWJT” (Who Would Jesus Torture)
Craig on 20 Apr 2009 at 8:17 am #
Thanks for the review. I’ve heard others tear this guy apart unfairly. The modalism issue is off base as well. I liked the book and agree with you about the fear of God missing. Thanks man. Much appreciated.
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 8:19 am #
Dac, why would you love the fact that people are inconsistent or even hypocritical? Not an approach of love to those people that would be in some sort of error. More significantly, however, their inconsistancy is irrelevant to the correctness or incorrectness of their views on the Shack. Your argument amounts to no more than a smug and superior ad hominen argument.
regards,
John
EricW on 20 Apr 2009 at 8:37 am #
To paraphrase CMP: Reading The Shack won’t send you to hell – so those who haven’t yet read the book should, IMO, withhold their criticism(s) until they have read it, since doing so will cost you very little in terms of time and/or money – you can buy it super-cheaply at Costco, or you likely have friends who will lend you their copy, or you can go to Barnes & Noble and read it for free in a chair or at their coffee cafe. You should be able to finish it in an hour or two, but to echo others here, IMO it’s not written very well (as in “literature”), so you may find the going tough at times. You will likely find things you like and things you’ll find theologically and Scripturally troubling (but the same could be said about Calvin’s Institutes). Personally, I was most impacted by Chapter 11, “Here Comes Da Judge.”
mbaker on 20 Apr 2009 at 9:20 am #
I haven’t read the book, so I cannot fairly judge its contents.
However, it seems to me there is a greater issue here. What do we read and what do we watch? It seems to me in our culture we have gone overboard on Christian books, DVD’s and the like. Does it strike anyone else here that they’ve almost become a subsitute for the Bible itself in some respects? Kind of like a non-threatening middle ground so to speak. We can read and study the authors who most agree with our opinion, and feel good about ourselves.
I am a big reader. I read all kinds of books, however and I don’t want to pat myself on what I am about to say, believe me, or sound smug, but several years ago I found I was reading more books about Christianity than the Bible itself. What happened was that I eventually found I was moving more to a one sided view of God, by taking on the view of the author I was reading at the time as fact, rather than all the facets of God.
That’s the danger I see, that it almost becomes an adverserial relationship between a ‘Christian’ book’s views, fiction or non-fiction, and the Bible. That happened to me when I began studying Calvinism versus Arminianism. One week I would be one and then the next book would convince me I should be another.
When I gave up reading so many books about God and start getting deeper into the Bible, i could see the error of my own ways. I still read a lot of books. However, I have learned to take all of them with a grain of salt, because I know if I’m not careful I will wind up getting man’s and God’s opinion confused again.
Scripture says there is wisdom in many counselors, but there is also confusion in too many voices.
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 9:22 am #
You keep saying that we shouldn’t rely on books like this to teach people basic theology. Maybe the church isn’t relying on books like this per se. But people are learning at least some of their theolgy from this book. People have stated so over and over. So I can’t help but think a book of this type has a very inherent danger to it. Many people don’t seem to be able to read it strictly as fiction, even though they may know it is, without at least some of Young’s theolgy rubbing off.
Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 20 Apr 2009 at 9:30 am #
I got a copy of the Shack for my Birthday, upon which my wife promptly pounced upon it and started reading it. So I will not be able to offer up an opinion on the book itself until she is done.
However I would like to note that Young, like myself, is from the Christian and Missionary Alliance background. Most Alliance folks, like myself, hold to an Arminian theology, so yes we are going to have Arminian assumptions.
I think the proper term for this is “Biblical assumptions”.
But seriously though, although CMP and I have very different theological viewpoints on a whole host of topics, on the essentials we are the same, and I appreciate the fact that we can have some great discussions without acrimony on this site.
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 9:32 am #
Cheryl, I seriously doubt his theology in the sense you are still arguing (bad theology) is rubbing off. I would need some sort of illustrative proof of this (i.e. people becoming modalists, etc).
I have talked to dozens of people who have been affected by this book in that it helped them see God’s love and deal with a troubling evil. I would include myself in that bunch. None of us have moved away from orthodoxy in any area (even though none of us starts off perfectly orthodox as God is the only one who is perfect in truth).
As well, I imagine that it is helping people to understand the orthodox view of God in its denial of modalism and affirmation of perichoresis. AS WELL, it makes a good case against open theism. AS WELL, it militates against the theology of Kurshner, whom many follow in their pain.
There is just so much to commend about his presentation of cardinal issues of the faith.
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 9:51 am #
CMP,
Yeah, they are seeing God’s love. But part of God’s love in the book is that He doesn’t need to punish people for sin and it is not His purpose to punish it–said in the context of a discussion on eternal punishment. If that is the way God’s love should come to be understood, is that in itself not a very significant problem?
How can a book accurately give a picture of God’s love for people to adopt, when part of the picture given is that He doesn’t purpose to punish sin? Maybe people aren’t picking up on that statement and maybe it is not affecting them. But that is a lot to assume. And you and others have talked about the lack of the fear of God in the book. Giving people a one sided view of God is always a dangerous thing to do, is it not?
Mbaker’s personal testimony above of how the books she read all affected her view of God for many years, is a case in point.
On The Shack « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth on 20 Apr 2009 at 9:58 am #
[...] some recent posts on The Shack check out Rick Mansfield, Michael Patton, and the comments to Ben Myers‘ [...]
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 10:06 am #
Cheryl, I already discussed this with you and expressed disagreement about your statements about the “not punishing sin” stuff.
But I could ask you this: How could someone grow in an understanding of God when he presents man as autonomous in acceptance of God. Man will aways feel as if they are the ones who are responsible for choosing God and thereby misrepresent God’s sovereign person and actions in their lives.
You see, focusing on certian elements and making them more than they are can sound pretty good. But in the end, they are very dismissive and alarmist, especially of this book.
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 10:15 am #
There are other elements of the book that trouble me too. I just brought out one that I found very troubling and to me is quite blatant. Enough of this conversation for me. Have to get busy with other things here.
EricW on 20 Apr 2009 at 10:17 am #
From CMP’s earlier thread on THE SHACK:
From this thread:
cheryl u:
Per my earlier post, I recommend that people read The Shack for themselves before extensively commenting on it. Going by what other people say, even people one trusts, is (as we were taught in school) using secondary sources, and our research papers required us to use primary sources. E.g., we were not just to read and quote what so-and-so said that Winston Churchill wrote or said, but what Churchill actually wrote in the letter(s) under discussion.
Of course, that will now make your comments a “secondary source” re: The Shack, but your ideas and comments about The Shack will then only have your filters, not yours + those of whosever article(s) you read. And in the case of The Shack, I personally found that I had to read it for myself to separate the wheat from the chaff and the concerns from the no-big-deals that some people were getting either worked up over or acting nonchalantly about (in my secondary-source personal opinion!).
Dave Z on 20 Apr 2009 at 10:40 am #
cheryl, you state God’s purpose is to punish sin. How far will you take that? Was his purpose in sending Christ to separate out for himself a people to punish? Or to punish sin in Christ? Yes, that happened, but was it God’s purpose? As if Genesis should say “Let us create man in our image so he can fall and we can accomplish our purpose – to punish sin.”
God’s wrath is real, and sin, in light off the devastation it has produced throughout history, must be punished. But it has been punished. In Christ. God’s wrath is satisfied – propitiation. All sin has been paid for and the door is open for anyone (whosoever) to enter. ( I think this is the majority position of the church, both historically and currently.) Those who choose not to enter will go to hell and be separated from God for eternity.
But back to the “purpose” point – punishment of sin, though a part of God’s plan, is not his purpose – Titus 2:14 gives us the purpose: “to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”
dac on 20 Apr 2009 at 10:45 am #
John C.T. -
It’s all in the Fe
You can either laugh or cry about things like that.
I used to be disgusted and now I try to be amused.
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 11:06 am #
Dave Z,
Of course God’s purpose in Christ is to save and redeem people.
But try reading II Peter 2 or the book of Jude and then tell me that it is not in his purpose, even now in New Testament times, to punish sin when people do not receive that gift of redemption in Christ.
Dave Z on 20 Apr 2009 at 11:17 am #
I SAID sin demands punishment. Your passages about evil men and angels just restates that. They don’t speak to God’s purpose.
So are you lumping The Shack’s author in with those described in those passages?
Gotta run. I’ll check back in later today.
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 11:33 am #
CMP et al., how can one claim to impacted by the book’s good parts and not give credance to the assertion that the bad parts also have an impact? Perhaps not on you personally, but it’s not a stretch to believe that it will have a negative effect on some.
In addition to the testimony of those who have been affected negatively by what they’ve read (e.g., Cheryl above), there is the fact that books with incorrect theology create a cultural milieu and general understanding of God that is incorrect. For example, one can readily observe that narrative books and movies, and the lack of correct teaching, has lead to the creation of a creed now dominant among teenagers that Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton have called dubbed Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD). In their 2005 book “Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers” they reported on their study of religion and teenagers, which is the most comprehensive to date. Those two sociologists discovered that rather than transformative revelation from God, religion has instead become a utility for enhancing a teenager’s life.
Literature that has incorrect theology can, and does, have profound effects on people, especially since most people — especially youth — are not equipped to sift through and properly separate the wheat from the chaff.
Next point, in relation to those who criticize Cheryl and others for not reading through the entire book. That criticism might have validity if any of you could point out flaws in Cheryl’s writing that arise from not having read something in the book. If that were the case then the critics could say, “hey, you’re wrong on that, the author does something very different on pages xxx to xxx. You should go back and read the whole thing before continuing with your critique.” However, most everyone acknowledges that the book contains incorrect and unorthodox theology. The review by Geisler, a well respected and erudite theologian, is particular good on this point. Those facts provide sufficient grounds for the concerns and points Cheryl raises, and the fact that she hasn’t read the book but instead relies on the findings of others does not invalidate her points (you’d have to invalidate the findings of others, such as Geisler, that the book has wrong and unorthodox theology). It is entirely appropriate to rely on the work of others–this occurs in science and engineering and psychology and business all the time and is essential for those fields to advance.
Therefore, you cannot hide behind your complaint, “oooh, Cheryl you haven’t read the book so I don’t have to engage your argument”. You aren’t off the hook. Her argument is that books with unorthodox theology have significant negative effects and so should be avoided, especially in light of the fact that our time on earth here is limited and there are other, better books to read.
regards,
John
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 20 Apr 2009 at 11:38 am #
I read the book in full and was troubled by it. I know it’s fiction, but when you read Amazon reviews from folks saying it is as inspired as Scripture (and hear folks close to you say it as well), when everyone keeps saying it has changed their view of God and when people keep speaking of this book taking “God out of the box”, that sound to me like they are forming opinions and there is a real problem there.
I appreciate that I may be overreacting but I really think there are some major issues which need some frank discussion. (For the record, Left Behind beats The Shack into the dust – and I’m an amillenialist
)
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 11:47 am #
Dave Z,
Please read the entire chapter of Isaiah 14. In there God repeatedly speaks of what He has purposed to do. Guess what? It is to bring judgment and punishment on sin! You might say that this was earthly punishment. However since part of the punishment talked about was the death of the offenders, I don’t believe that argument would hold up at all.
John C. T,
You said, “It is entirely appropriate to rely on the work of others–this occurs in science and engineering and psychology and business all the time and is essential for those fields to advance.”
Thanks. I beleive that is a very valid point.
And for any one that is interested, there is a reason that I have not read this book so far anyway. Several times when I have been in a place that is selling this book, I have picked it up, with the intention of maybe buying it. Each time I have felt a huge caution which I believe is from the Holy Spirit that has basically said, “Don’t buy it.” So I haven’t.
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 11:47 am #
Saying, “Sure the Shack has some unorthodox theology, but it also has some good stuff and it had a beneficial effect on my own life, but I can agree it’s probably not good for some” is like saying, “Sure, there are some objectionable and wrong aspects to viewing pornography, but as long as you only fantasize about your wife it has a really beneficial effect on your marriage—it did on mine–, but I can agree it’s not for some people”.
regards,
John
EricW on 20 Apr 2009 at 11:56 am #
So is The Shack now being compared to pornography (comment #21.)?
Godwin’s Law….
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:02 pm #
Cheryl, the point is that of “purpose.” It is not my purpose to punish my kids when they do wrong, yet this is something that happens. Sometimes out of necessary “built-in” consequences, and sometimes by parental fiat.
“Purpose” is a very strong word that many people would have trouble with. Now, it does seem that there is a bit of a smokescreen going on here in the book, but nothing expressly denying judgement, punishment, and the terrible nature of sin.
‘I don’t see any major line being crossed’ : Church Leader Links on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:03 pm #
[...] don’t see any major line being crossed’ C. Michael Patton shares two posts (here and here) defending his positive appraisal of The [...]
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:10 pm #
John, you that you keep brining up Geisler is very humorous to me as his book “Choosen but Free” has been reviewed by many Evangelicals as being expressly unorthodox, even Pelagian. I would agree with this. I love Geisler and appreciate so much about what he does in the areas of Prolegomena and Bibliology, but his views of sin, humanity, and salvation are unorthodox. Therefore, I find it funny that we are using one person who has been, as of late, acused of of heretic thought to condemn another who is being accused of the same. Suffice it to say, I think Young’s The Shack is much less problematic than Chosen But Free!
I think it would be good to recognize once again here that none of us are perfect in our theology. Let us be gracious and try to understand how small of circles we create when we require everyone to nuance everything the way we do.
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:15 pm #
CMP,
So why does God repeatedly use the word “purpose” in Isaiah 14 in regard with His intention to bring judgement, punishment and death to evildoers? That is the word used in many versions I checked too, but not all.
He declared right from the garden of Eden on that sin brings death. It was His declaration right from the beginning. How can we not say it was not His purpose to bring it about? That seems to me like quibbling over words.
If He is a holy God that can not tolerate sin as we have all been taught and as the Bible says, why is it so difficult to say that it is His purpose to punish sin when it happens?
And by the way, how come it is not your purpose to punish your kids when they do wrong? The Bible clearly teaches us that we should do so. If it is our purpose to follow what He has said, is it not also our purpose to punish our children when they do wrong?
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:22 pm #
What do all of you do with the testimony of one like Douglas above who said this: “I read the book in full and was troubled by it. I know it’s fiction, but when you read Amazon reviews from folks saying it is as inspired as Scripture (and hear folks close to you say it as well), when everyone keeps saying it has changed their view of God and when people keep speaking of this book taking “God out of the box”, that sound to me like they are forming opinions and there is a real problem there.”
Do you really think that there is nothing in this book that can change a person’s theology in an unbiblical way? Because people are being changed by it.
And by the way, comments such as this, “So are you lumping The Shack’s author in with those described in those passages?” And this, “So is The Shack now being compared to pornography (comment #21.)?” are really not very helpful, and in fact come across as simply rather snide put downs.
EricW on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:26 pm #
Not a snide putdown, but a question.
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:38 pm #
Cheryl, when you talk about “purpose” to judge sin, you are moving into a supralapsarian Calvinistic camp. While within the bounds of orthodoxy, I believe, I am not that strong of a Calvinist.
I believe that God does not desire the death or judgement of anyone.
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:40 pm #
Cheryl, I did not even realize that you had not read the book. It is kinda hard to take your critique seriously. I understand, however, if you don’t want to read it. If you are convicted not to, you should not. But I don’t think you are in a position to continue to evaluate it. Having said that, I think that even if you did read it you are set to see this book a certian way.
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:41 pm #
If I plan to go on vacation tomorrow and am working to get ready, is it not my purpose to go?
If I quit doing one job because I am out of time for it and need to move on to another, is it not my purpose to do the next job?
If I am getting ready to leave the house to go to town and run some errands, is it not my purpose to do the errands?
And, if God says that if you sin and are unrepentant, you will be cast into a “lake of burning fire”, or if you do not change your behavior in some specific area, He will provide consequences you will not like, is it not His purpose to punish??
A dictionary definition of purpose that seems to be the one that fits here: ” A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention”.
When God intends to punish sin, is it not His purpose?
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:45 pm #
No, not unless you are a supralapsarian. Are you?
Kara Kittle on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:48 pm #
What’s a supralapsarian? Are they smarter than the average Calvinist? Now look, I have to go study a whole new word, but I have chores to do, thank you CMP for tempting me yet again to look at Wikipedia once more….
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:54 pm #
CMP,
“I believe that God does not desire the death or judgement of anyone.”
I am not saying He desires death or judgment on anyone. That does not mean as far as I can tell that He does not intend (purpose) to bring it about if necessary. Don’t we all have to do things at times that we really don’t desire?
And regarding your comment # 29, did you read what John C. T. said in comment # 18 above? I believe what he said had validity.
If you said something in an article like, “There is no such a thing as eternal punishmnet for sin,” or maybe, “Of course Jesus sinned while on earth, after all He was a man wasn’t He?”, would I really have to read all of the rest of the article you wrote to know that what you had said was in error? That isn’t even logical. And like John C.T. said above, no one has been able to state that he said something else anywhere else in the book to negate this particular statement. You say he is not negating punishment for sin. That may be true. However, He is saying that He doesn’t need to punish it and that it is not His purpose to. That I do not believe, is true to what the Bible says.
EricW on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:03 pm #
IIRC, in The Shack God’s ultimate purpose seems to be to save and redeem humanity, every last son and daughter of Adam, if possible (it’s been awhile since I’ve read it). To save them from sin and the effects of sin, including the effects that sin had on them with respect to situations, upbringings, experiences, etc., that caused them to sin in the first place.
Is that unorthodox?
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:05 pm #
CMP, your reply is merely diversionary and does not address the issues raised by either Geisler or me. That Geisler is accused by some of unorthodoxy on some points (which he disputes) is irrelevant to whether his assessment of the Shack’s unorthodoxy is correct. The points he raised in his review are all, as far as I can tell, within the realm of traditionaly orthodoxy and so his alleged unorthodoxy on other issues is irrelevant. On those points, that is those points on which he is traditionally orthodox (which include all the points in his review) he effectively demonstrates that the Shack is not orthodox. Hence, your reply does not effectively counter anything but merely (and incorrectly) derides those of us who have raised Geisler by tarring us with the brush of negative association (i.e., we are wrong because we associate with /rely on a theologican who is unorthodox in some respects.) Furthermore, as is evident from my comments, and those of others, Geisler’s review is a convenient shorthand way of referring to the theological errors in the Shack. Geisler is not the only one who has identified errors; many have. Consequently, your observation, while amusing to you, does not advance the discussion you started.
I am somewhat surprised that a teacher of theology would find Geisler’s “Chosen but Free” to be more problematic than the Shack. Geisler’s free will position is within the realm of orthodoxy and is a matter about which thoughtful and Spirit indwelt Christians have debated for centuries without final resolution. However, the Shack’s unorthoxy is, unlike Geisler’s in areas where Christians have not disagreed for centuries or millenia. It is particularly telling that the Windblown website has a section titled, “Is The Shack Heresy? By Wayne Jacobsen”. If the book were merely ficition with the theology incidental to the story, the correct response would have been, “It’s fiction folks, get over it.” But it’s not merely fiction and it attempts to address theological matters and give as the correct response (in the author’s view). Consquently, Jacobsen makes an attempt to demonstrate that the Shack does teach correct and not heretical theology. This approach is in line with what the author wrote, ” I wanted my kids to enjoy a story and through the story to understand there own father better and the God that their father is so in love with.” He wrote it so that his kids could understand God better.
No one goes to hell for reading something by David Duke or on stormfront.org (racists) either, but that doesn’t mean that one is well advised to do so. Both Deeprak Chopra and Eckhart have insights into life that are frequently true. They are also often very moving in what they write. That does not mean that they should be read by Christians in order to take away the good and leave the bad.
EricW, you will note, if you read my post, that I did not directly compare the Shack to pornography. I did not say that the Shack was pornographic. I used a vivid illustration to make the point that reading something that contains wrong or harmful material is not justified just because it has a beneficial effect on me and I am not harmed by the bad bits. Furthermore, the reference to Godwin’s law is inapt (and inept) as I did not refer to Nazis or Hitler. I used an illustration that while vivid, is neither a stretch nor an extreme. Chrisians have, in fact, tried to justify the watching of pornagraphy along those very same lines, and some Christians have also asserted that they can be in good conscience both a stripper and a Christian.
Finally, further to Cheryl’s points, on his blog “windrumors” the author quotes from an email to him, “I didn’t put this in my comment yesterday, but I want you to know that The Shack has been really instrumental in helping me forgive someone that I’ve been angry towards for years. I’ve prayed for so long that God would help me forgive that person, and I never felt like I could. While reading The Shack, I realized that that person is special and so loved by God, and I started feeling the anger in me drain away. I now think of that person with affection, which I never thought could be possible. How Sarayu works! This truly is a miracle.” How Sarayu works? Is that an appropriate response?
regards,
John
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:05 pm #
Regarding comment # 31,
If purpose is, as the dictionary says, ” A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention”. Why is God’s intention to punish sin when it occurs not His purpose? Notice the defintion doesn’t say that He has to desire it, only that it has to be “intended, an intention.” Does He not have an intention to punish sin?
EricW on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:13 pm #
John C.T.:
I know you didn’t mention Hitler, but I mentioned Godwin’s Law as a principle/observation re: how threads/discussions can (d)evolve. And your comparing a person’s qualified comment about the value (or danger) of reading The Shack to a person saying something similar about reading pornography does to me in a sense compare The Shack to pornography, which does seem to be a kind of Godwin’s Law – i.e., eventually the opposing position will be compared to something like pornography.
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:19 pm #
CMP, “Cheryl, I did not even realize that you had not read the book. It is kinda hard to take your critique seriously. I understand, however, if you don’t want to read it. If you are convicted not to, you should not. But I don’t think you are in a position to continue to evaluate it. Having said that, I think that even if you did read it you are set to see this book a certian way.”
Why is it hard to take her specific critiqure seriously? Her main point is a limited critique, the validity of which does not depend necessarily on having read the book (see my post #18). It’s a cheap, and faulty, attack on her point and not responsive to her point.
Furthermore, is there anything in Cheryl’s numerous posts on your blog site (on all the various threads) that indicates that she is so closed minded that her mind would not be changed if she read something? Not that I’ve read. We ALL come to books and movies and media with preconceptions and a certain worldview; that does not mean that we are incapable of overcoming them or of seeing past them. So again, another unjustified cheap shot at Cheryl.
If she had critiqued the writing, or the character development, or the plot, etc. without reading the book, then you might have a justification for your complaint if you could show from the book that she was wrong. One should note that Young did not intend to write well or to “follow the rules of writing” (as he puts it). His chief aim was to write down his own thoughts, including thoughts about God, for his children. His thoughts about God is one of the chief focii of the book, one of its central points and themes. Therefore it is highly appropriate to critique the theology in the book. For you to demonstrate that Cheryl’s point is wrong, you’d have to show from the text that the author does not say what she claims. Which you have not done.
regards,
John
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:24 pm #
EricW, the point about Godwin’s law, if it is to be extended beyond Nazi references, is that a comparison to Nazi’s is both extreme and conversation ending (Since the holocaust is so extreme, there would be nothing greater or worse to compare it to). My use of the pornography illustration was neither extreme nor conversation ending. Hence calling it an example of Godwin’s law is “not appropriate in application” (inapt) and “Displaying a lack of judgment” (inept).
regards,
John
EricW on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:28 pm #
The probability that The Shack will be compared to something extreme like pornography increases as a thread discussing and arguing about the book grows longer. Hence I think my “Godwin’s Law” remark was neither inapt nor inept.
regards,
ScottL on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:36 pm #
CMP -
I am loving this so much. Again, what a breath of fresh air to find a more reformed, Calvinistic thinker as you liking The Shack.
Again, I think Young did accomplish his main purpose in presenting the relational nature of our Triune God. I think he had a couple of side points – no doubt he leans toward universal reconciliation and presented something near that case. I also think he wanted to see a few of the religious get their ‘knickers in a twist’, and he was successful.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Kara Kittle on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:49 pm #
As asked early what one was…isn’t this what TULIP teaches in Unconditional election? Perhaps I misunderstood. What would this have to do with The Shack? And is The Shack a veiled attempt at theology teaching or reinforcement? Hmmm, perhaps a good thing I never read it then.
I am currently reading Tess of the D’Urbervilles again for like the 50th time, a novel dealing with theology and social law accompanying it. Good story and shows just how narrow minded some Christians could become.
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:52 pm #
Eric W,
To say that there is truth in The Shack doesn’t eliminate the fact that there are also problems.
For some years I was in a church situation where the common teaching was “eat the meat and spit out the bones.” The only problem with that kind of teaching is that there are always those that don’t know the difference between the bones and the meat! (Think young children and a plate full of boney fish.)
When truth is mixed with error it can have a very deadening effect. People see the truth and don’t stop to look for the error. Or they are so gradually drawn in that they don’t recognize the bones any more.
And believe me, I know how exhausting it is from personal experinece to sit under teahcng where you know there are going to be “bones” and having to sit there on the constant alert, wondering when the next one is going to appear and wondering if you have the discernment to really know the difference. For some time, I was swallowing some of those bones believing them to be meat until the Spirit started showing me where all of this stuff was going. And I also sat there week after week and saw people that I knew and loved be sucked into stuff that had no Biblical basis in reality at all.
That is probably part of the reason I have such a huge problem with books like this. I know how easy it is for any of us to fall for a lie and to have to go back to square one and sort it all out with the Bible all over again. I don’t wish that on any one. It is an extremely painful experience. And if I can warn people of dangers in any of these area that are out there today, I want to do it.
Michael Teeter on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:54 pm #
Cheryl,
I think you are missing the forest for the trees with your criticism. You are right that it is God’s purpose to punish sin in the dictionary sense that he wills it to happen. Yet I think there is a broader question of whether or not punishing sin is what he desires to do and what the ultimate ends of the punishment is. It seems to me that God does not want to punish sin as God would rather have a world where people didn’t sin. Furthermore God’s purpose in punishing sin is not merely to punish sin. If you think about it in terms of children no parent punishes their children purely for the sake of punishing them. They punish them so that they will hopefully learn and not commit the same errors in the future. Of course God’s punishments can be far more severe, but again it seems clear in most passages that his punishment is not without a purpose greater than the punishment itself. God for instance punishes Israel on many occasions, and yes many Israelites die as a result of these punishments, but the purpose of the punishment is to bring Israel back to God.
God also seems to provide both active and passive punishment. For example if you sleep around with a different person every night and get an STD it seems ridiculous to say that God is punishing you in an active sense. Rather God simply created a world in which sinning would result in natural consequences. Now this is not to say that God never actively punishes people, but it seems to me at least that the obvious punishments people get for the sins they commit are the built in ones, by which I mean the punishments that are a natural consequence of the action taken.
As for eternal punishment this would get into the whole Arminian vs. Calvinism and “hell is locked from the inside” debate and I’ll stay away from that. Suffice to say the book does not seem to deal with eternal punishment and certainly doesn’t deny it.
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 2:01 pm #
Sigh. EricW, first, your wikipedia article only refers to comparisons to Nazi’s or Hitler and does not indicate that other types of comparisons fall under that law (likely for the very reason that I raised, which is that Hitler is the most extreme comparison). Second, I did not compare pornography to “The Shack”. I compared modes of reasoning. My point was that the same reasoning that leads some to say that reading “The Shack” is OK is the same sort of reasoning that leads others to say that viewing pornography is OK. I used a stronger example than earlier comments, because the earlier comments did not use effective examples or the concerns were being “pooh poohed” as not substantive enough or not proved. My example served as a stronger illustration of the real danger involved in a particular way of thinking. You have not, however, demonstrated that my example is extreme, unecessarily extreme or conversation ending. Since my illustration did not use comparisons to Nazis or to Hitler, was not an extreme example but one within the bounds of reality and one that actually occurs, and did not end the conversation, your allegation that my illustration is an example of Godwin’s law is unfounded and incorrect.
regards,
John
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 2:04 pm #
Well said, Cheryl.
regards,
John
EricW on 20 Apr 2009 at 2:13 pm #
Godlose’s Law:
This law (or rule) states that whenever mention is made of Godwin’s Law, the probability that there will be a discussion re: the appropriateness of referring to Godwin’s Law approaches 1.
regards,
Dr. G. on 20 Apr 2009 at 2:56 pm #
Establish distinctions, as a way of avoiding seeing connections? Or being responsible for making them? Could be accused of various logical fallacies like … 1) establishing a distinction, without a difference.
2) Does G’s (Godwin’s) law apply only to Nazis? Are no such thoughts or principles generalizable?
3) Sophistical analytical parsing and other forms of obscurantism of course, have been long used by theologians and holy men, to escape mobs with pitchforks. And to that extent, that is a useful skill. An appropriate, heristic tool for theologians.
4) Still … the habit of never making your point clear … in some ways, dooms academics to obscurity.
5) So that in the end, it is a rather sterile game. If pursued too far, it dooms one to ineffectuality.
6) So should someone begin a discussion, on the discussion, on the discussion of “The Shack.” The meta-commentary?
7) That might descend into infinite regress? And ever more chronic ineffectuality?
Or a life of the spirit, that never touches the earth?
Dr. G. on 20 Apr 2009 at 3:17 pm #
The spirit that “ascends” to Heaven allegedly, but who in His Abandonment may be said better to have descended? (To fill all things of course).
dac on 20 Apr 2009 at 3:20 pm #
cmp
this thread has driven me back to being disgusted
I think this is where I tell you “I told you so”
Keep up the good fight
David
Brian on 20 Apr 2009 at 3:38 pm #
Hey CMP,
I serve in a small church geared toward the urban poor as well as the homeless. I had an interest in teaching the people who come to our church , and especially the leaders, a few week teaching on basic christian doctrine. I already checked out your material under ’store’. I was wondering if you had any other recommendations on either workbooks or books that you would recommend that goes over the essentials of the faith as well as the unorthodox views throughout history that I could teach? Either I go with somekind of workbook or I will have to get on mircosoft word and make my own packet. Thanks.
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 3:46 pm #
EricW. Once again, instead of engaging in dialogue you simply issue a pronouncement that is typically a conversation ender: First you cited Godwin’s law, now Godlose’s law. A citation of Godwin’s law is a conversation ender because it indicates that the other party has taken the discussion in an unprofitable direction, one where hysterics and irrationality take over at the expense of reasoned dialogue. In fact, you asserted that my comment was causing the discussion to devolved. The second citation functioned similarly (as a conversation ender). Neither comment addressed the topic of this thread, nor furthered conversation.
On the other hand, I interacted with your brief, but inaccurate comment, and showed how my illustration did in fact further the discussion. You have not responded to any of my arguments, leaving it prima facie the case that I have proved my comments correct and yours both wrong and unhelpful.
I would not have bothered replying except that others have found your comments unhelpful and not conducive to dialogue. We enjoy interacting with those of very different views (for example, the very lengthy discussions that have occurred with Mormons on this site). However, much preferred is dialogue that is responsive to and tries to elicit comments from others.
regards,
John
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 3:50 pm #
Dac, I am with you!
Please get off the Godwin’s law. This thread has deteriorated to talking about it, and hence Hitler. We all know what Eric meant in principle. Let’s just leave it at that as this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I have, in my own opinion, dealt with most of the major issues that people propose about Young’s book. No one is perfect, and, I still believe, as I have demonstated sufficiently to some, that he has not crossed any major line in the book. If you disagree, you may be right, but this really can’t, in its current progress, represent a good stewardship of time to rehash things over and over. It may be best for us to agree to disagree.
However, I really do appreciate your passion and concern for truth. In this I will continue to think about what you have said. I may be wrong about my evaluation.
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 4:00 pm #
CMP,
I agree, this has been very time consuming and agreeing to disagree may be the best we can do. Thanks for your gracious comments. If I ever believe it is ok for me to go and get the book and read it, I will do so. And if I find I have been wrong, I will admit it.
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 4:05 pm #
Brian, I would most certianly suggest The Theology Program, especially the first three courses. These are foundational to establishing the essential and non-essentials. We have many sessions devoted to this in Introduction to Theology.
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 5:17 pm #
Agreeing with Dac’s flip comment that he is disgusted does not make those of us who try to contribute intelligently and to pursue dialogue feel welcome, appreciated, understood and encouraged to contribute. In reviewing the thread, I see nothing to be disgusted about.
regards,
John
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 5:23 pm #
John, no one was jumping on you. It is just when things go round and round it gets nausiating. I contribute to this just as much as you. No need to get offended.
Dave Z on 20 Apr 2009 at 5:43 pm #
CMP, thanks for taking a shot at this. Your original articles are solid even if the discussion became unprofitable.
As always, I appreciate your balance and cool-headed analysis. That’s why P&P is my favorite blog.
Dr. G. on 20 Apr 2009 at 5:44 pm #
Personally, I rather like a good workout in Logic, or aloof intellectuality, now and then. See my clumsy attempts to respond somewhat in kind. As my own self-parody, of course.
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 5:52 pm #
Thanks for your reply Michael, I typically find you to be reflective and helpful. No offense was taken, my job has thickened my skin over the years. However, also due to my job I am sensitive to how others may be discouraged by non-engagement and non-responsiveness. Have a good night, I’m off to read more about public purchasing and government procurement, which I have been doing all day, interspersed with coffee and replies on your blogs.
regards,
John
Kara Kittle on 20 Apr 2009 at 5:55 pm #
Dr. G.
What? Depreciating yourself for the owner of the blog? Interesting.
John C.T. on 20 Apr 2009 at 6:08 pm #
Before I leave the office today, I would like to point out that Young believes in Universal Reconciliation, that his editors took about a year to expunge much of that from the text (among other things they worked on), though evidences of it still remain. In addition, Young has disapproved of the penal substitution theory of atonement, though admittedly that is not really an upfront issue in his book. In reviewing this thread, I note that no one has successfully demonstrated that his book does not contain unorthodox theology. The issue seems to have moved toward how much bad is too much bad. However, that ignores the type / genre of literature that Young used (which I raised). In addition, I don’t see that anyone has successfuly responded to Cheryl’s concerns except for the “if you are concerned be careful, otherwise read with discernment”. I think that Cheryl’s critique of that approach was accurate and valid. Consequently, I think that this thread raises important issues of Christ and literature and discernment that bear further discussion (i.e., a continuation of this thread), and which should not be settled (at least at this early stage) by agreeing to disagree. The discussion of literature is important, given that the evangelical and fundamentalist subcultures are routinely criticized for putting out schlock literature.
regards,
John
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 6:19 pm #
John C. T.,
I have read that Young once believed in Universal Reconciliation but says he no longer does. But I have also read that his editor’s did do a lot to remove it from the book.
Dr. G. on 20 Apr 2009 at 6:26 pm #
I’m an academic, but not a Church History taxonomist. Or a “letter-of-the -law” man either.
So: “Universal Reconciliation”? Just looked it up; it would seem to be a gateway drug to … Liberalism. Is it therefore being vilified here? For that reason?
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 6:49 pm #
Dr. G,
Universal redemption is rejected by historic Christianity being that the Scriptures are clear and the history of the church has spoken in unisom about it. Matt 7:14-15, among others, make it very clear.
If Young promoted universal redemption in this book, I would most certianly not have given it a pass in the way I did.
EricW on 20 Apr 2009 at 7:26 pm #
I proffered a comment that has so far not received a response as far as I can tell, i.e.:
As I said, I haven’t read the book in some time, but I think readers come away from The Shack mostly with the ideas that:
1. God may not be the way one has been taught that He is, or the way one has thought He was.
2. God’s love for people, and His desire to save and redeem His fallen creation is far, far, far greater than we can imagine.
3. Even the worst possible human situation or circumstance, or even the worst possible person, is potentially not beyond God’s power to love and redeem.
(They also may come away with the idea that Young stole God the Father from the Oracle in The Matrix, but no one’s perfect! As has been said here: eat the meat/fish, and spit out the bones.)
We spent some time in the [Eastern] Orthodox Church, and an often-intoned statement to/about God during the liturgy and elsewhere is that He loves mankind:
Οτι αγαθος και φιλανθρωπος Θεος υπαρχεις, και σοι την δοξαν αναπεμπομεν, τω Πατρι και τω Υιω και τω Αγιω Πνευματι, νυν και αει και εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων.
We Protestants say that “God is love,” and we quote John 3:16 a lot, but I wonder if the implications of this has really penetrated our hearts and our minds and transformed us? Perhaps Young focuses too much on this aspect of God to the neglect of some other aspects of His nature, but his doing so has apparently struck a resonant chord in many readers.
Kara Kittle on 20 Apr 2009 at 7:41 pm #
So from all these discussions, should I read it or not?
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 7:43 pm #
Nice Eric.
Laughed out loud here: “(They also may come away with the idea that Young stole God the Father from the Oracle in The Matrix”
Never thought of that, but you could be right!
C Michael Patton on 20 Apr 2009 at 7:44 pm #
Kara, I don’t know anymore…lol. I just plead the fifth.
cheryl u on 20 Apr 2009 at 7:57 pm #
Eric W,
You said, ” As has been said here: eat the meat/fish, and spit out the bones.”
I think you missed my point altogether–people can choke to death on the bones!!
Kara Kittle on 20 Apr 2009 at 7:58 pm #
CMP,
I read War and Peace when I was 13, and being the Dyslexic I am and the long effort to get through it and understand it, I swore off complicated books the rest of my life…LOL.
EricW on 20 Apr 2009 at 8:41 pm #
cheryl u:
I understood your point. However, others have used the phrase in a less fatal sense than you did, so though I borrowed the phrase from you, I was not necessarily making the same point you were making.
(I think the first time I heard the phrase as a fairly new Christian was from Ernie Gruen, pastor (then) of Full Faith Church of Love in Kansas City, Kansas, in the late 1970s.)
Chris on 20 Apr 2009 at 10:55 pm #
John C.T. –
“For example, one can readily observe that narrative books and movies, and the lack of correct teaching, has lead to the creation of a creed now dominant among teenagers that Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton have called dubbed Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD). In their 2005 book “Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers” they reported on their study of religion and teenagers, which is the most comprehensive to date. Those two sociologists discovered that rather than transformative revelation from God, religion has instead become a utility for enhancing a teenager’s life.”
While I appreciate the comment, it does come off as a “get off my darn lawn” old man comment. If teenagers are being influenced in this way, it is because the dominant mode of preaching/teaching in the evangelical church is focused on Seven Habits of Highly Effective Sunday Christians.
mbaker on 20 Apr 2009 at 11:42 pm #
Chris,
I think your last statement is a reach. There might be some churches like that, more than we would care for there to be actually, but we know there is always a certain amount of questioning among teenagers if anything the ‘establishment’ says is right.
On what, specifically do you base your conclusion, and how does that fit in with The Shack?
John C.T. on 21 Apr 2009 at 6:56 am #
Dr. James B. DeYoung, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary (Portland Campus), has reviewed The Shack and provided a supplement to his original review. Dr. DeYoung brings a unique perspective in his reviews due to the fact that he is personally acquainted with William Paul Young. His review can be read at: http://homepage.mac.com/johnfonville/.Public/Theology/Reviews%20of%20The%20Shack/Revisiting%20The%20Shack%20and%20Universal%20Reconciliation%20extended.pdf
Or you can google the names and the book title. His review has been posted at several sites.
DeYoung knew and interacted with Paul Young for over a dozen years.
It is interesting to note that Paul Young has never disclaimed or disavowed a belief in universal reconciliation, which is not the same as universalism. Paul is also quick and careful in interviews to disclaim “universalism”, and then the interview moves on to other topics. But given that universalism is not the same thing as universal reconciliation, he in effect gets a “free pass” on the topic. One interviewer did press him on the topic, which led to an interesting exchange.
However, I think the more important point about this particular work is the one that Cheryl has been making, because on Paul’s own websites he has specifcally stated that he wrote down his theological thoughts first, and then searched for a way to string them together and to communicate them. He chose to write a fictional book to express his thoughts. And because the fiction writing was secondary to the expression of his theological thoughts he expressly states that he intentionally gave no thought to the “rules” of proper fiction writing. He further states that he was surprised that his book took off, given that his approach was one of intentionally break the rules because I care more about my theological thoughts than about my fiction.
It is therefore clear that his writing was intentionally a vehicle to teach theology. Consequently it is appropriate and necessarily to critique his work as a theological work. His work is all the more potentially dangerous because he deals with emotionally moving themes and so gets past our usual mindful defenses against error, and because he presents only one side (his) without acknowledging or interacting with positions different from his. Furthermore, his work is in fact dangerous because there are identifiable theological errors.
There is an additional danger. He has now become a respected and liked author. Thus, even though his editors have carefully expunged universal reconciliation from the novel (and I agree with CMP, the traces left only potentially and ambiuously refer to universalism), he is now in a position to give his views on universal reconciliation a wider hearing. He has not done so yet, so one cannot know whether he has changed his views (unlikely, since he moved TO a position of universal reconciliation and it was his last expressed position on the issue), or is just keeping silent on the topic because it’s not that big a deal to him and not worth endangering book sales, or some other reason.
So, in addition to what Cheryl has expressed, these are the reasons that I believe that the Shack is important enough to make a big deal about, even though it is true that reading it won’t send you to hell.
regards,
John
EricW on 21 Apr 2009 at 8:07 am #
John C. T. wrote:
What is the difference between “universal reconciliation” and “universalism”? Wikipedia (I know it’s not an authoritative source) lumps the two together and/or regards them as interchangeable:
from Universal Reconciliation:
“Universal reconciliation, also called universal salvation or sometimes simply universalism, is the Christian doctrine or belief that all will receive salvation due to the love and mercy of God shown through Jesus Christ who died for the sins of the whole world…. In the early Church, universalism was a flourishing theological doctrine[1]. Over time, as Christian theology experienced growth and expansion, it lost much of its popular acceptance. Today, most Christian denominations reject the doctrine of universal reconciliation.”
from Universalism:
“In Christianity, Universalism refers to the belief that all humans can be saved through Jesus Christ and eventually come to harmony in God’s kingdom. A related doctrine, apokatastasis, is the belief that all mortal beings will be reconciled to God, including Satan and his fallen angels. Universalism was a fairly commonly held view among theologians in early Christianity: In the first five or six centuries of Christianity, there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Cesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality, and one (Carthage or Rome) taught the endless punishment of the lost.[3] The two major theologians opposing it were Tertullian and Augustine.[citation needed]”
From another Website:
“Christian Universalism”, in its simple and proper theological sense, is the doctrine of universal reconciliation, universal salvation; or in other words, of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, to be effected by the grace of God, through the ministry of his Son, Jesus Christ.
EricW on 21 Apr 2009 at 8:22 am #
Or am I confused because you are distinguishing between “universalism” and “universal reconciliation” – but by “universalism” you mean non-Christian universalism?
I.e., whereas “Christian universalism” and “universal reconciliation” are the same thing, “universalism” and “Christian universalism” are not the same thing.
Dr. G. on 21 Apr 2009 at 8:42 am #
To be sure, the doctrine that 1) Christ will save everyone, some day, leading them to Him, is often dovetailed into the idea that 2) everyone’s religion is OK in itself; or even that their own religions will lead them eventually to Christ or God, in the end.
So that Christian universalism … often shades into Universalism; the belief that all gods are OK, or are the same in the end?
So they are a gateway to Liberalism?
Dr. G. on 21 Apr 2009 at 8:48 am #
No doubt, we should be careful about following false religions.
Mat. 7:14 ff., tells us that narrow is the gate (to the kingdom, apparently); and that there are many “false prophets.” But it does not however tell us, which prophets are the false ones.
Indeed, the Bible often warns that may will come in the name of “Christ,” crying “Lord, Lord” … and yet even these “Christians” will be false.
So …? Is it all that clear, who we should be following?
EricW on 21 Apr 2009 at 9:11 am #
Not to digress (okay, I’m digressing!), but IIRC the same church that called universal reconciliation heresy (per the final sentence in DeYoung’s article: “In the sixth century the church called universal reconciliation heresy, and it has treated this belief as such ever since.”) also labeled as heretics those who do not believe that the bread and wine in the eucharist become the real body and blood of Jesus Christ, and asserts in the Creed that baptism effects the remission of sins, and that there is one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, affirming a hierarchical episcopal ecclesiology à la Ignatius and Cyprian, et al. Yet many Evangelicals who are willing to label universalists as heretics are themselves heretics in the eyes of the Church Fathers and the early Church. I am not defending universalism (in fact, it seems to me upon first reading that DeYoung has written a valid critique), but simply commenting that I find it interesting that Evangelicals would appeal to the Church Fathers and the early Church for its definitions of heresy when that same Church and those same Fathers would call Evangelicals heterodox, schismatic, heretical or even apostate.
Dr. G. on 21 Apr 2009 at 9:26 am #
Though to be sure, ecumenist elements of the Church are now somewhat universalist, in that they suggest that while only Christ and/or the Church saves people (“outside the Church there is no salvation”)… they might however, choose to save persons who are not Catholics.
cheryl u on 21 Apr 2009 at 10:05 am #
Since folks are starting to look at Young’s theology more closely, I am going to repost this link. I posted it originally on the first thread about The Shack.
http://www.canadianchristianity.com/bc/bccn/0409/01shack.html
This concerns an interview with Young in which he apparently denied that Jesus died to pay for human sin on the cross. It also mentions that he brought up the possibility of “ultimate reconciliation”–the possibility that all people will be saved in the end.
I agree with your thoughts on this subject, John C.T. This man does have some pretty serious theological issues and they will likely come out in any further books that he writes. And you are right, he is a very popular author.
I also agree that since The Shack was written from the author’s perspective as a vehicle to teach his children about God, it has to be viewed as a theological book and critiqued as such even though he used the medium of fiction.
EricW on 21 Apr 2009 at 10:23 am #
From cheryl u’s link:
IIRC, a friend (summa or magna cum laude grad from Dallas Theological Seminary) mentioned in a “church history” class he was teaching at church that the predominance of the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement was primarily traceable to Anselm of Canterbury, and that before that time, the concept of Christus Victor – i.e., Christ’s death and resurrection defeated Death – was the majority understanding and teaching/belief. Thus, to say as Adams seems to say in this article that “penal substitutionary atonement” (Calvin’s development of Anselm, I think) is “the heart of the gospel” may reflect a narrow view of the church’s historical understanding and teaching.
This is not to defend Young, but only to comment that the popular Evangelical view of Christ’s death may not be the only one that can claim to be “the heart of the gospel” and the church’s teaching.
Michael L on 21 Apr 2009 at 10:55 am #
You know…. I would like to ask a question…. all the way from the original post… section 4:
“We don’t get a free pass by simply saying it is fiction”
And why not dare I ask ?
1) Who has read The Great Divorce ? (if not, please don’t comment)
2) Do you therefore believe in some form of “intermediate pending state”, perhaps even called “purgatory” ?
3) If not, why not… after all that’s what the whole book seems to be about. That people can choose to “take the bus” and then make a choice to “be reconciled”.
4) If you don’t, do you therefore call C.S.Lewis a heretic ?
The point I’m trying to make is that one of the best Christian novelists we know and speak very highly off, wrote a fiction work once that is kinda sketchy to say the least. But all because in his introduction he mentioned is was a pure musing on what-ifs and not a theological essay, we let it go.
Another analogy.
What is our problem with the “Da Vinci Code” ? If on the first page Brown would have written that Everything in this book is pure speculation, not historically verified and a frame for a compelling detective story, would we have reacted the same way ? I think our fierce reaction on the Da Vinci Code was greatly due to the fact that it was presented as based in historical facts. Which is in turn what led some great scholars, Dr.Bock not in the least, to respond with writings to “debunk” the Da Vinci Code. If it were presented as purely fictional, it could have been about a bunch of Martians for all we cared.
Personally my conclusion has been that I think Young himself is trying to infer too much in his writings. And that’s where it becomes a problem. I think it is our duty to warn people about the contents and where it fringes on orthodox theology. Have discussions with people that claim that it changed their lives. Ask them why ? Engage with them from an educated perspective. Just like you would engage someone who now has an staunch belief in purgatory because they read “The Great Divorce”
For those that feel uncomfortable reading it, just say so. Answers like “I have heard too much criticism on it and am uncomfortable reading it” is perfectly acceptable. Find someone that has read it and point people that way. Taking quotes out of context is too easy and one can pretty much prove anything. I’m sure I could prove CMP to be an Arminian if I hunted this blog long enough
Besides that, discussing all kinds of laws, discoursing on the purpose and nature of God’s punishment or not, etc… all very interesting debate and undoubtedly stimulating. However, I’m afraid it provides little help though in how we as Christians should lovingly engage with those that have read the book and put too much importance on it. That’s why the response It is pure fiction is perfectly acceptable to me. I engage people and point out that this is a work of fiction, it should be treated as such, it has theological flaws and when Young is indicating that it was inspired, true, etc.. I have a problem with that. I treat it as fiction, not doctrine. When it goes beyond that… engage. But IMHO confrontation has never been a good way of engaging.
Just my two pennies worth
In Him
Mick
And PS: Yes, I can’t wait until “Angels and Demons” hits the screens… it was a way better read than Da Vinci… I’m sure this final comment will put me on the heretic list with a lot people
cheryl u on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:16 am #
I just listened to an interview with Young. The link to it may be found at this site:
http://www.davidwesterfield.net/2009/03/shack-author-william-p-young-denies-penal-substitution-mp3/
It is quite long but I would highly recommend it for any one that is interested in knowing more about where Young is really coming from.
In it he makes it very clear that he really does not believe in the penal substitution of Jesus. That is, he doesn’t believe that Jesus was punished for yours and my sins on the cross. He has another take on the meaning of the cross.
He also leaves the door open for what he calls “ultimate reconciliation”–the possibility that even those that have not accepted Jesus before death will unltimately be saved because God might find a way to do it.
He does get a lot right in this interview, but those two issues are very major and he does get them wrong.
At the end of his interview, Al Mohler, who is, I believe, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, gives his take on the book. He says it includes “undiluted heresy” and he also speaks of what he believes to be the dangers of a fiction book like this that does teach heretical positions.
cheryl u on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:39 am #
Oh, and in the interview, when they were discussing the possibility of “ultimate reconciliation”, the interviewer spoke of hell as being an eternal punishment. Young then commented that fire is often a purifier that burns away what is wrong in a person, (not sure if that is exactly how he put it, but I think it expresses his idea). He seemed to imply that maybe that fire in hell might possibly be the way God could use to purify people after death so that they would ultimately be saved.
Dr. G. on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:43 am #
How did Jesus save us? “Defeating Death” sounds like a very general, old idea. That did not stand up to much scrutiny. It might not say much more than this: he came back from the dead; literally got up out of the grave, and walked and talked, physially. And therefore, it looks like we can too.
And so early Christians liked to be buried above grournd, expecting that their physical bodies would need easy access to the open sky in resurrection time.
However, as time went on – and few were resurrected in that way? Apologists began to come up with … other ideas; still more words.
“Penal subtitutionary attonement” (/”Jesus Died for Our Sins”?)sounds superificially, a bit more sophisticated. That Jesus dies on the cross, as punished (“penal”) fall guy, or martyr. To “attone for our sins.” Which seems to give Jesus a value … even if we don’t literally resurrect from the grave.
First, hopefully, 1) his attonement is good enough … that we don’t get killed; we get immortality out of it – Defeat Death – too. Still…? In a way, it seems to suggest that 2) even if we don’t see people rising out of their graves very much, these days, still the death of Jesus had some other kind of value. Namely, a) Jesus removed (“attoned for”)our sins. And then hopefully, the new promises were, b) later on, our new and improved soul may goe to, say, heaven. To be rewarded there, hopefully. With an afterlife. So that in in the end we get a delayed Defeat of Death; albeit after some delays, now.
And today, we are raised to “hope” for that. Though how hopeful should we be? Given the apparent collapse of the obvious, physical resurrections promised from the start?
Today, it seems, substitutionary attonement is current dogma in most churches. No one remembers any problems with the original promises.
EricW on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:46 am #
Dr. G.:
Are you a resurrected reincarnation of the late (in)famous “Dr. G.” aka “Dr. Gene” aka Dr. euGene Scott?
Dr. G. on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:53 am #
I am resurrected from another context; to find a new life on your blog.
John C.T. on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:55 am #
Universalism is the belief that all paths (i.e., universal) lead to salvation. That is, Bhuddists will be saved in their own way as well as Christians in their own way. All destinations are the same. Christ is not the only way.
Universal Reconcilication is the belief that your way (typically the Christian way) is the only way, but that God will save everyone through this way. So, Christianity is the only to salvation but God will save everyone through Christianity. So, for some that might mean belief in Christ before death, for others faith in a future hope (Abraham), for others belief in divine revelation (visions or general revelation for unreached peoples), and purification in hell or purgatory for those that made no decision before they died (or some such scheme).
In short, universalism is all saved through many different religious paths, but universal reconciliation is everyone saved via one religion.
regards,
John
Dr. G. on 21 Apr 2009 at 11:56 am #
I defend another kind of immortality than either of these
Dr. G. on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:13 pm #
(Liberal) elements of the Church (RC; not “Royal Crown”), therefore, I would guess, believe in universal reconciliation.
That is to say, that although no one is saved except by the Church, still the Church, having been given full authority to speak for God (though Apostolic Succession and so forth), can now choose to delegate that authority. To say that, thanks to its standing as God’s chosen representative on earth, that, in their just and fair liberality, it now simply declares that … that even Protestants might be saved. Thanks to the Church so declaring it. (Hence, its “ecumenism”).
To be sure, note, Protestants are not saved on their own, exactly; but saved because – and only because – the Church, with its authority, said that they might be.
So that by this strategm. The old dogmatic statement – “there is no salavation outside the Church” – is still true (i.e., there is universal reconciliation; all are all saved by one and only one; in this case, one church). But at the same time, however, this one Church now in turn, uses that authority or salvific power, to extend a protective umbrella or aegis over others. Telling them they can save themselves in part, in their own way … thanks to the Church now … having lent its authority to them, to do that. Thanks to the Church having said that is OK.
Thus elements of the Church have signed off on Protestantism; authorizing it in the interest of post Vatican II liberalism. (The liberalism you hate, is the liberalism that keeps Catholics from killing you, as heretics).
To be sure, so far, the Church has not (very clearly) delegated such freedom and authority, to very many other religions, outside Protestantism and Orthodoxy.
Though to be sure, long ago Jesus himself said, that a mere good “Samaritan” – who was not even in the Judeo-Christian tradition at all; a mere heathen – might be a far better person, a better “neighbor,” than the most pious Priest or Rabbi. Or to extend this, an apparent agnostic might be a better person, that the most loudly professing and self important Christian.
cheryl u on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:14 pm #
Dr. G,
Regading comment # 87, sorry, but the positions you have stated here don’t sound very Christian to me.
JohnO on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:22 pm #
‘Penal substitutionary atonement’ is not THE way to understand Christ’s crucifixion; it is A way. The creedal statement is that Christ was crucified, died and buried (Apostles or Nicene, there’s little to choose between them on this). There is no mention of the why, or how salvation was achieved, and it is the creeds which give us much of our measure of orthodoxy.
Yes, scripture speaks of Jesus as substitute, but this is not penal substitution. This idea has its origins in medieval feudalism. In fact, scripture has many different ‘models’ for soteriology:
Adoption
Atonement
Expiation/propitiation
Justification
Ransom
Reconciliation
Redemption
Representation
Revelation
Sacrifice
Salvation (Latin salus = health, welfare)
Second Adam
Victory over sin
(all cribbed from old lecture notes)
The point being that no ONE of them is sufficient to encompass all that God achieved through the cross. Now, it may be fair to criticise Young for having a bias towards one of them (the last on that list, most likely), but there is the small issue of specks and beams here. And to be fair to Young, he’s not atypical in his approach. Many leading theologians have a bias towards one or more models. This does not make them, or Young, unorthodox or a heretic; they simply express a different view, but one that falls within the broad scope of accepted Christian doctrine (whether you like it or not).
And yes, I have read it – and read it through the eyes and filters of a trained theologian. And yes there were bits I wasn’t entirely comfortable with, but acknowledge that they were still within the accepted bounds of orthodoxy. And yes, I do think he skates very close to universal salvation (but I don’t think he’s a pluralist. I don’t think he’d accept that all religions lead to God), but then so does Barth, one of the biggest influences in modern theology.
cheryl u on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:28 pm #
John O,
The point is not that Young is focusing on another way of understanding the cross. He is basically denying that Jesus was punished on the cross for our sins–period. Listen to the interview. That is what he says.
Wonders for Oyarsa on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:33 pm #
I’ve been told that in the Orthodox church, universal reconciliation is considered heresy when taught as a dogmatic certainty, but definitely tolerated as a hope. I hope that all will be saved, but I do not teach that all will be saved.
This seems right to me. How many times in scripture does God pronounce damnation, only to stay his hand by the prayers of the saints? Our hope and prayer should be no less than the salvation of all – however inconceivable that may be. But we must never fall into the trivialization of willful evil, sin, and death that seems to go hand and hand with universalism. Evil truly is a horror – we truly do have the capacity to debase and corrupt ourselves horrifically – to separate ourselves from the living God such that his loving righteous presence towards us becomes a fire of torment – Hell itself.
JohnO on 21 Apr 2009 at 1:31 pm #
Cheryl,
He says he doesn’t accept penal substitution – but he does accept substitutionary atonement. They are quite different and they should not be confused. Penal substitution is largely a ‘product’ of Western (by which I mean the Western Roman Empire as opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy) thought, largely, but not exclusively, influenced by feudalism. One might argue that penal substitution is not Biblical. Substitutionary atonement most certainly is.
Dr. G. on 21 Apr 2009 at 1:33 pm #
I listened to the first twenty two minutes of the Young tape; the relevant passage is actually 21 minutes in.
Young 1) is saying that he does not think that Jesus was punished for our sins, to save us that way. But 2) he notes that there is in Evangelical theology today, a huge controversy on this. And there are several theories about how Jesus saved us, or what the crucifixion meant. Young mentions the “Penal” theory; while Young 3) seems to favor the “Substitutionary” theory: Jesus “became sin for us.”
In rejecting “Penal” theory, does Young therefore 4) reject Jesus completely? Hardly. He 5) merely rejects one of a dozen theories, of exactly how Jesus saved us.
But strictly speaking, 6) yes, Young contradicts what many of you heard in church: he does not believe Jesus died for your sins, in a “penal” sense. But a “substitutionary” sense instead; he “became sin for us.”
To be sure, though, 7) substitution is interesting too. One might well wonder how God might decide it was good, to kill the best person on earth, as punishment. Why punish a good man? Or even let an innocent person take the rap for everyone else?
There are many things in churches that we heard, that might need later “refining.” Suppose we look at some other theories, of all this?
Let’s not take whatever we heard in our separate churches as children, as the last word from God; let’s move on with more “mature” thinking, as Paul suggested. And to theology. Which considers many possiblities; not just one or two.
ScottL on 21 Apr 2009 at 1:34 pm #
Cheryl -
I think it might be time to take a step back off the horse. I don’t say that in a harsh or arrogant way, it’s just that you have made about 20 comments on this thread now, and I think all are understanding your points, though not all agree with everything you’ve stated. And, as CMP stated, it is hard to hear what you are saying if you haven’t taken time to read and consider the book. I suppose if you did read it, you would already come to it with a preconceived idea that it is full of trash. While it does not have perfect theology, from my perfect standpoint
, I still think he accomplished his point.
Still, in all, you could post another 20 comments and I am not sure you are helping the conversation move forward. It’s ok to relax and take a step back.
cheryl u on 21 Apr 2009 at 2:26 pm #
ScottL,
You know, yesterday afternoon I did just that. I said I was done with this conversation when CMP said we would probably have to agree to disagree. Others besides me kept the conversation going last night and this a.m. by taking a slightly different approach. When I rejoined the convo this a.m. I certainly thought that what I brought up was relevant. If you do not think so, that is up to you.
Are you one of the moderators of this blog? I can find no evidence that you are. I must say I have never been a part of a blog conversation where I was told, although granted in more polite terms, to just plain shut up! And by one that hasn’t even been part of the conversation.
If you are an owner of this blog, then please let me know and I will by all means stand corrected.
JohnO on 21 Apr 2009 at 2:37 pm #
Cheryl,
I think that what what Scott was suggesting is that the conversation is getting caught in a bit of a loop over the issues of penal substitution. You obviously feel very strongly that it is a key doctrine; others don’t. More to the point, you are unconvinced that Young can deny it and remain orthodox. Simply reiterating your stance on this does not advance the discussion. Perhaps a way to move the conversation forwards would be to explain why you think it is critical and to address some of the criticisms of penal substitution put forward by Dr. G.
Also, would you accept that, in the interview, Young does not deny substitutionary atonement, only the issue of penal substitution? And do you understand the difference between them?
Peace.
John
cheryl u on 21 Apr 2009 at 2:44 pm #
John O,
You may be right, but it sounds to me like he is speaking of the whole conversation.
cheryl u on 21 Apr 2009 at 3:30 pm #
John O,
I went back and listened to the part of the interview again where Young discusses this matter. He says He believes Jesus was our substitute in some way–He took our sins, but he absolutely does not believe that Jesus was being punished by the Father for our sins on the cross.
My question would be this, if Jesus didn’t take the punishment for our sins on the cross, who is going to? That leaves it up to us to take that punishment, does it not? And if the punishment for sin is eternal death in hell, if that punishment has not been paid then do we not have to suffer it?
Young also asserted in the interview that God’s wrath is always towards sin, not towards the person.
If there is something I am missing here, would someone please fill me in?
cheryl u on 21 Apr 2009 at 3:33 pm #
Let me just add to that last comment that I did some reading on line on substitutionary atonement. It seems that most definitions said that Jesus was taking the punishment for our sin.
So what exactly is the difference, if that is the case, between penal substitution and sutstitutionary atonement? If that definition is correct, I really see none.
EricW on 21 Apr 2009 at 3:44 pm #
cheryl:
By searching/reading about St. Anselm and Calvin and substitutionary atonement and penal substitution and atonement, etc., and associated links, you can find lots of entries at en.Wikipedia.org that discuss and explain the differences between substitutionary atonement and penal substitution and how and why the different theologies of the atonement developed, as well as the strengths and critiques of the various theories.
It wasn’t until we spent some time in the Eastern Orthodox Church and studied church history and the development of doctrine that we were confronted with the fact that most Evangelical Protestants are never challenged with, or made aware of, some of the varying theologies that the church has held during its 2,000 year history, nor the fact that some dearly-held “this is a hill to die on” Protestant beliefs were not always believed everywhere, always, and by all.
minnow on 21 Apr 2009 at 4:01 pm #
Cheryl–If one believes that the penalty for sin is eternal exisitance in the lake of fire then in order for Jesus to be the penal substitute He would have to spend eternity in said lake, would He not?
John C.T. on 21 Apr 2009 at 4:02 pm #
I believe that blogs work best when contributers help shape the thread, instead of having a moderator or blog owner step in. When someone makes an unhelpful contribution, or takes matters to far off track, I suggest that it is preferable to post a comment that puts things back on track (since subsequent comments are likely to be responsive to it rather than to the previous off topic one(s)), instead of just telling someone to not post. Cheryl was posting in response to comments about atonement, and others posted in reply to her, so a number of people contributed to that rabbit trail.
To put things back on topic, I think that we can recognize that the book itself, “The Shack” does not go into depth on atonement and so is not seriously in error on that point (I stand to be corrected). However, arguably The Shack does contain other errors. The atonement issue comes up only because the author gains a platform to speak on other issues if his book becomes popular and he gains popularity and respect.
Now
Warren on 21 Apr 2009 at 4:06 pm #
Cheryl u (#104, 102, etc.), I want you to know that you have at least one ally reading this blog. There are likely others, but not everyone is willing to get “jumped on” on a blog. For me, blogs are an interesting diversion and I long ago realized that the medium rarely results in minds being changed or problems being solved.
I find some of the comments on this post an interesting example of the modern western “virtue” we call tolerance. Of course, everything can be tolerated except intolerance. My view is a little different. I think many people are uncertain of what they really believe and are thus unwilling to express opinions except in shades of gray. Of course, I shouldn’t point a fingers, because, although I have strong opinions in some areas, there are other areas where I am much less certain of what I really believe.
I find the references to what one may have been taught in Sunday School to be a red herring. I would suggest that we are discussing major themes in reformation thinking and I believe the conversation would be better couched in these terms.
By the way, I have read the book and listened to the interview you referenced in #85 (I listened to it before reading this blog post). I didn’t really feel threatened by the book, but was quite underwhelmed considering the fanfare surrounding it. I mostly found it to be a collection of many of the religious cliches that I grew up with. Like most religious books, I think it will be popular for a season and then fade from view. I don’t think John Bunyan has anything to be worried about.
John C.T. on 21 Apr 2009 at 4:12 pm #
OOPs, pressed the submit button.
Back on topic, given these facts: (1) The Shack was intentionally written as a primarily theological work to communicate the theological ideas of the author with the fiction added later as a wrapping to tie the writing together (as stated by the author himself), (2) contains unorthodox and aberrant theology in a number of areas, (3) emotion evoking writing can more easily get past our defences to wrong ideas, and (4) people do change their beliefs and practices because of fiction they read, how then do we exercise discernment?
Given those facts, I believe that it is ill advice to take an entirely neutral position about whether to recommend reading the book. I suggest that an appropriately discerning comment would be (using Kara as an example since she has inquired about whether to read the book): “Kara, Paul Young developed his theological ideas first and developed a fictional story around those ideas. His book is intended to teach theology and while it does contain orthodox theology it also contains very unorthodox theology. Reading the book will open you to a number of wrong ideas about Jesus. If you want to understand the problem of evil and God, there a number of much better books that you can read. If you want to read an emotionally moving book that will draw you closer to God without feeding you lies about God, there are a number of books that I can heartily recommend. Our time on earth is too short to read this book when there are superior books.”
Or something like that.
regards,
John
JohnO on 21 Apr 2009 at 4:21 pm #
Hi Cheryl,
Maybe if you posted the link to the article you read online that would help address the issue of distinction.
Theopedia isn’t too bad at presenting a balanced view:
http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_substitutionary_atonement
and
http://www.theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ
The second one has a useful historical overview of the various atonement theories. Neither article is very comprehensive though. Wikipedia isn’t too bad either.
The difference between them is that substitution (on its own) encompasses some of the ‘models’ mentioned in scripture. For example, only Jesus could be the perfect sacrifice, only Jesus was capable of paying the ransom. Now these are great examples of substitution, but they do not have a punitive element to them. Penal substitution really hangs on Romans 3:25-26 which talks about God withholding His punishment of sins. The passage tells us that “God presented him (Jesus) as a sacrifice of atonement.” Atonement is the Old Testament idea of making a sacrifice in order to turn aside God’s righteous wrath for a wrong committed. But even here it’s not 100% conclusive that Jesus was punished. Sacrifices weren’t punished – they were simply sacrifices. Arguably it is the one who hands over the sacrifice who is being punished. In this case, that would be God. Is God punishing Himself? I suppose the answer is yes, but this is not the idea behind penal substitution. Penal substitution is about Jesus being punished in our place, but I don’t think the Biblical evidence is compelling that this is the case.
So, substitute? Yes!
Punished? I’d be with Young on this one.
EricW on 21 Apr 2009 at 4:32 pm #
And in Romans 3:25-26 (segueing from JohnO’s comment above), the idea that it’s talking about “propitiation” has to do with the fact that this is how the word hilasterion was translated – but it more properly means “mercy seat,” doesn’t it? I.e., the place where God meets man. Jesus is God’s mercy seat.
“Propitiation” came into our language via the Latin translation, IIRC.
Thus, views of penal substitution that depend on Romans 3:25-26 might actually be being influenced by the Latin/English translation of what Paul wrote instead of what Paul actually wrote.
Dave Z on 21 Apr 2009 at 4:36 pm #
To Cheryl (and others)
I’m just curious about something…those who frequent this blog are probably aware of the education and experience of those who write P&P articles, in this case, Michael Patton. Then add in other well-known and respected theologians (I own their books) who occasionally post, and other like JohnO who describes himself as a trained theologian. There is some real depth here at P&P.
So, even if you disagree on something, does the education and experience of those on this blog carry any weight with you? Do you stop to think, “Michael says there is nothing heretical here, maybe I should pay attention.” Sometimes it sounds as if you just write that off in favor of your own opinon. What does it mean to you that dedicated, well educated believers come to a different conclusion? Could it be that things are not so clearly defined as you think?
Perhaps the contrast would be lessened if some of you would state your education and experience – how you have personally and over an extended period of time, researched and wrestled with the various theories on the atonement or the 2000 year history of the debate over inclusivism. Or the nuances of any other theological position presented in the book.
In other words, those of you who condemn the book, what is the source of your authority? This is not meant to be disrespectful, but I feel it is a fair question. I know CMP’s qualifications to discuss theology, but, at least at this point, I don’t know yours. Maybe you can help me out there?
cheryl u on 21 Apr 2009 at 4:56 pm #
In comment #111 above, Eric asked for the link to an article I had read. Actually I read several. Here is one: http://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonement.html
I didn’t read the complete article, but enough to know that they said that in substitionary atonement, Jesus took the punishment for our sin.
In answer to Dave Z, above:
I have certainly not had theological training as CMP has. I did go to a Bible School for two years and have read the Bible all of my adult life.
I also know that what one group of Christians considers heretical or to be a problem, (I believe the word CMP used was unorthodox), another may have no problem with. Yes there are many nuances out there.
We are told in Scripture to test all things for ourselves and hold on to the true and right. When I read something that to me sounds like it doesn’t line up with what Scripture teaches at all, I have a severe problem with that. Specially when it is in a medium that many people say is changing their lives.
John C.T. on 21 Apr 2009 at 5:01 pm #
Having dealt with “experts” with “credentials” over the last two decades, credentials and qualifications count for little to me. They might give an indication of an area of study and expertise, or they might not (lazy and ignorant people also get degrees). For any expert, I’ve been able to find someone with equivalent qualifications that takes a different or even opposite position.
Qualifications might matter if I’m doing a quickie check on something and don’t have the time in the near future to do the work myself. Then I’ll go with what an allegedly credentialed person says or writes (at least for the time being).
However, when it comes to knowing the truth, expertise is entirely irrelevant. What counts is the reasoning and the facts. If anybody on this blog wants me to accept their point, they have to prove it. Once proof is given, then I can evaluate it myself.
As to my belief that the Shack contains errors, they are apparent to me from the words of the text. In addition, for errors that others identify, the words in the text support their allegations.
regards,
John
Dave Z on 21 Apr 2009 at 5:27 pm #
Wow, John C.T., do you apply those standards to your medical doctor?
You say “However, when it comes to knowing the truth, expertise is entirely irrelevant. What counts is the reasoning and the facts.”
My point is that extensive study, through formal education or otherwise, just makes one aware of a lot more facts, which allows reason to reach a more informed position.
Dr. G. on 21 Apr 2009 at 5:30 pm #
John C.T.: “errors” relative to which theology? Could you describe your own orientation or denomination briefly?
No doubt your views have been described here at length. But in just a few words? So we can have a brief handle on what theology or denomination it is that you favor?
No sacrcasm intended here; it would be informative.
Warren on 21 Apr 2009 at 5:57 pm #
Dave Z (#116), hang around some “well credentialled” liberal Anglican clergy (Episcopalians for those of you in the US) for a while, and you won’t be so “wowed” by what John C.T. is saying. It seems that the more some of these clergy are educated, the fuzzier their thinking becomes. [I'm not an Anglican, by the way, but have great appreciation for orthodox Anglicanism.]
EricW on 21 Apr 2009 at 6:32 pm #
cheryl u:
That was JohnO, not I, who requested your link in comment #111.
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 21 Apr 2009 at 6:39 pm #
I am all for education, but when you start using your education to start talking where God stops, (like we say here in London), dude you’re off on one…
cheryl u on 21 Apr 2009 at 6:49 pm #
Sorry, EricW.
John C.T. on 21 Apr 2009 at 7:20 pm #
Medical doctors, same thing. Usually because I am dealing with discrete and limited issues and because I get relevant information quickly from my own experts, I know as much about a specific topic as any but the rarest of experts. And if I have to deal with one of those, I just have more to learn.
For my own medical doctor, I also do research on anything that requires a decision by me. Obviously, I can’t do practically things like operations which require skill in addition to knowledge. People with difficult problems regularly attest to the fact that they had to do a lot of learning themselves and consult more than one medical expert.
No one, however, has time to learn everything about everything. I know only a little about atonement theories, and am not inclined to learn more at this point. Where I do comment on things, or where someone (e.g., CMP or other posters on this blog) attempt to convince me of something, then I learn more and defer to no one’s degrees. There are people with as many or more degrees than CMP who would vehemently disagree with many of his positions. How would one choose between the two? Qualifications are irrelevant.
For many of my initial theological positions, I start with the teachings of someone I respect and trust because of what I have learned about them, or from interacting with them, or I default to the position of my background (broadly conservative evangelical, largely baptist, with some mennonite). From there I question and learn and don’t take something as unalterable just because so and so said so.
So, you can see that I’m practical. I have to, and do, start with the positions of other people, but when it comes to being persuaded or thinking through things, I do that work myself. Given that one person’s qualifications can always be set up against someone else’s, qualifications in the end don’t get you far.
Take, for example, atonement. I would initially go with what D.A. Carson or W.L. Craig or J.P. Moreland write. Then I would examine what they said and see if it stands up. And I would broaden my reading to people that disagree with them. And I would continue to make up my mind along the way, changing it if necessary.
regards,
John C.T.
mbaker on 21 Apr 2009 at 8:01 pm #
Dr. G,
Regarding comment #117, could you do the same for the same reason?
Thanks.
ScottL on 22 Apr 2009 at 4:00 am #
cheryl -
Thanks for the comment back. I am not one of the owner’s of this blog. I do apologise if I came across offensive. It is just interesting that the article as been ‘hijacked’ (I used that word in blogging/forum sense, not negative). Do know that my comment was not said with any anger, and do apologise if there was offense.
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 8:30 am #
Dave Z.
Physician, heal thyself.
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 8:47 am #
Dave Z and Others Who Think You Must Be Educated,
Asking to see someone’s educational background in speaking about God means you really don’t know God, you are just familiar with a systematic study of a book. Shame that you feel that way. Hmm, Abraham Lincoln was well educated, but spoke highly of his uneducated mother.
That was a very biased comment you made. And it clearly shows that you are missing a great portion of the teachings of the Bible. And I will show you the point you missed. Paul said he was educated under the great teacher of the time Gamaliel, he studied law and knew very much about scripture, but said now knowing what he knows now he would have traded it all sooner.
Let me share a little secret with you, no matter how much you know there will always be someone who knows more than you, and someone who knows more than them. It’s not found in the formal education, it is found in the relationship. Unless you have a relationship with Jesus Christ, in essence you really know nothing because Jesus is the author of the book and He explains Himself well in it, and does He ever one time request credentials of anyone? Absolutely not. Your request is unfounded and until you understand just who God is through relationship you really won’t truly know God. Simple and easy to comprehend.
And if you keep relying on other “educated” people to teach you about what you should be learning on your own, you give yourself a great disservice. Sure CMP is a great author and teacher, but CMP understands as well as I do that he is not a replacement for my own learning through prayer and leading of the Spirit.
I can’t teach CMP about God anymore than CMP can teach me about God. He can tell me what the definitions are according to his viewpoint, but really in essence it comes down to our own individual relationships with God. CMP may be a fine teacher, but he can’t spoon feed every one all the time. That is why he makes this blog, to get us talking and sharing viewpoints. And it is much like “as iron sharpens iron”. If you depend on the spoon feeding, pretty soon you depend on it to the point you might be educated, but you are educated on one viewpoint, and if that is the case, how will you ever know that one viewpoint is correct?
Dr. G. on 22 Apr 2009 at 9:02 am #
The Bible puts much emphasis on “faith” of course; but it also at times mentions “knowledge”; even of “all things.” Even Jesus learned things; he “grew in knowledge.” Suggesting that … education is important.
Theology in fact, might be defined as the devotion to God … that does not rely just on faith, but follows God’s command to study the scriptures, and grow in knowledge.
The Bible does not totally stress your individual relationship with God; it warns you that you may end up “doing whatever seems right” to yourself; but not really following scripture. So that the Bible seems to … warn about too much individualism. And encourages us even to follow some “rulers,” “leaders,” at times.
In that education, to be sure, we should listen to many voices, “many counsellors.” But if we just listen to our own voice? Our own idea of God? And do not listen at all to others? Even experts? Then you are in danger of … “doing what seems right” in your own mind. But not really hearing God.
EricW on 22 Apr 2009 at 9:06 am #
Kara Kittle:
Yet both Jesus and Paul appealed to the Scriptures to make their points and to educate their readers/listeners. And to read the Scriptures that Jesus and Paul pointed their readers and listeners to, or themselves wrote, one must either know Biblical Hebrew and Greek, or have some facility with them, or refer to translations or resources written by those who have been educated in Hebrew and Greek.
(Having an understanding and knowledge and education of the culture and history and geography doesn’t hurt, either.)
I guarantee you that if you are reading the Bible in translation, you are not reading the Bible that Jesus and Paul read or wrote. (E.g., Paul’s argument in Romans 10 seems to play on the semantic range of the preposition εν (en), something that is nearly impossible to bring out in English translation.) And if you are reading it in translation, you have submitted your mind to the “education” of those who did the translation and made the translational choices that you now accept as “the Word of God.”
This is not to disparage translations, but to try to somewhat redeem or rehabilitate “education” in the minds of those who think it is an unnecessary or even detrimental qualification for knowing the God of the Bible.
YMMV
Dr. G. on 22 Apr 2009 at 9:25 am #
Today, most Christians are used to just following and believing; faithfully. And most do not take much time to think about problems in what they are taught. But theology tries to do that.
Regarding the right interpretation of the crucifixion? John O.’s outline, comment # 95, seems very useful. It seems to offer many, many different understandings of that event.
Apparently there are things beyond just 1) Penal Attonement (cf. Catholic Purgatory/punishment), and/or even 2) Substitution. It might be interesting to mentally think about all of these … before making up our minds on the subject.
Personally, I am not an expert in these. And I haven’t really heard a good definition yet on either of them, here. In general, though, some of these theories seem to favor the general idea that Jesus “Died for our Sins.” But perhaps some do not.
Could we look at them and discuss them, before making up our minds?
And condemning The Shack, to Hellfire? When most of us are clearly, not even clear, on what “Penal Substitution” is?
Dr. G. on 22 Apr 2009 at 9:38 am #
On my own views or religion? Personally, I am non-denominational. I was raised in the Presby. church. But now believe that a good Christian should be educated in Theology; even possibly, in “higher criticism” and Religious Studies.
Dr. G. on 22 Apr 2009 at 9:53 am #
By the way, the Catholic Church apparently does not take Penal Substitution as being final in some way; since it believes that ordinary people still have some sins clinging to them at death. That need to be burned off … in Purgatory. Before they can be admitted into heaven.
That might be why this is a hot-button Hellfire issue; it recalls the ancient wars between Catholics and Protestants; the days when these two Christian groups were busily burning each other at the stake, over precisely such issues.
Did Jesus die; his one sacrifice being enough for all time, (as parts of the Bible suggest) to make us perfect? Or at least sufficiently saved to go to Heaven? Or are Catholics right?
cheryl u on 22 Apr 2009 at 10:01 am #
Dr. G,
Regarding comment # 129:
“And condemning The Shack, to Hellfire? When most of us are clearly, not even clear, on what “Penal Substitution” is?”
Please remember that my original problem with The Shack was, among many other things, that God said in it that He didn’t need to punish people for sin and that it was not His purpose to punish. Those were the statements that, to my understanding are completely unbiblical. For example, Ex. 34:7, “I will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.”
The theology of penal substitution only began to be discussed after it was pointed out by someone else that he is now a very popular and respected author and therefore has a platform to make his views known on other subjects and that this could be a danger.
His views on penal substitution may very well be the basis for his statements in The Shack and to me make the likelihood that he probably meant exactly what he said there even stronger. However, my objection to what was actually said in the book would stand on the merit of the quote alone. It does not at all rise or fall on learning that he does not believe in penal substitution.
EricW on 22 Apr 2009 at 10:27 am #
cheryl u:
You do realize that the words “the guilty” in Exodus 34:7 are an interpretation/interpolation, as the Hebrew text doesn’t contain them.
FWIW, The Living Torah (Aryeh Kaplan) reads:
Dr. G. on 22 Apr 2009 at 10:30 am #
Someone said “the Bible was written by a poet.”
Many people don’t really see the “poetry” of the Bible; the radical ambiguity of it.
In this case: “I will by no means leave the guilty unpunished” … could be taken to mean … that God will not neglect to punish the guilty.
But see the above
JohnO on 22 Apr 2009 at 10:56 am #
Hi Cheryl,
I think you’re right – the conversation drifted off into a bit of a tangent, but I guess penal substitution was a logical move from the idea that God needs to punish sinners.
I dislike proof-texts so, if I might take the liberty of quoting the wider passage you are using from Exodus:
Now, at first glance it seems to me that the emphasis here is is on God’s grace and mercy, and so to focus exclusively on his punishment is dishonest to scripture. As always, there is a balance to be struck. What’s also interesting is the translation of the line you are quoting. The NRSV equivalent doesn’t speak of punishment, just that the guilty don’t get away with it, a subtle but important, distinction I think.
Dr. G. on 22 Apr 2009 at 10:58 am #
The author I think, said in his interview, that God did not (need to) punish us … because … “sin is its own punishment.”
Thus we are in fact punished by God; but more exactly, by the world that God made. Indirectly, but not directly, by God?
For example, in natural law: if your mother makes a “law,” don’t touch the top the stove”; and you disobey it? The pain you experience is its own punishment.
This may or may not be the Old Testament God. But surely the New Testament God, Jesus, is quite forgiving? And even at times says he will not “judge” us and so forth? While many like Paul argue that the New Testament gave us a “new covenant,” that is different from the old “law”s of God.
Given all that, arguably … The Shack’s author … is within the bounds of the Bible itself? On this issue at least?
cheryl u on 22 Apr 2009 at 11:02 am #
EricW,
Okay, what do you make of these Scriptures?
“Rom 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
Rom 2:6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
Rom 2:7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
Rom 2:8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
Rom 2:9 {There will be} tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,”
Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
And this one:
“Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Sounds pretty plain to me about Who is doing the judging, punishing, pouring out of wrath or whatever here.
Dr. G. on 22 Apr 2009 at 11:14 am #
But if there are still sins to be purged or punished here, then Christ’s atonement was not final or enough?
EricW on 22 Apr 2009 at 11:23 am #
cheryl u wrote:
cheryl u:
What does the reader of Romans 2:5-10 make of Romans 3:21-30?
cheryl u on 22 Apr 2009 at 11:42 am #
Dr. G,
Of course His sacrifice was sufficient and final. But if it is not applied to a person’s life, they will not reap the benefits of it.
cheryl u on 22 Apr 2009 at 12:00 pm #
EricW,
Yesterday it seemed some were upset because this conversation was taken off course. If we get into a discussion on the relationship between those two chapters of Romans, we might go off course for another day or two!
Besides, their relationship has really nothing to do with the fact that God has said He will punish sins. God has said He will do so in other places in the Bible. If one starts to pick apart every Scripture where He makes this clear and try to make it say something else or try to divert attention from it, I will have to start wondering if that person recognizes the Bible as God’s Word and His authority for our lives.
cheryl u on 22 Apr 2009 at 12:17 pm #
EricW,
“If one starts to pick apart every Scripture where He makes this clear and try to make it say something else or try to divert attention from it, I will have to start wondering if that person recognizes the Bible as God’s Word and His authority for our lives.”
I realize looking back that I am addressing two different people in that comment so that was too harsh a characterization. I apologize for that.
But still, I can’t believe we have to have a discussion here to prove that God does indeed punish sin. It is in the Bible from start to finish. Some punishment is indeed natural consequences. But over and over God makes it plain that He does so Himself.
John C.T. on 22 Apr 2009 at 12:25 pm #
I initially raised Young’s theological views expressed outside of “The Shack” as part of the relevant issue of discernment in reading and supporting this offer. In that post I stated, “I think that this thread raises important issues of Christ and literature and discernment that bear further discussion.” Cheryl only raised atonement by way of a link to Young expressing his views on this topic. In rereading posts, Cheryl kept bringing the atonement issue back to the views of Young himself; others were hijacking the thread into issues of atonement generally.
EricW, has raised (twice) a relevant point about universalism in The Shack and in Young’s theology generally. There are various kinds of universalism (more than I initially realised). A good read about these types in relation to Young’s book and Young’s own views is http://theshackreview.com/content/ReviewofTheShack.pdf
I think this thread can continue to have relevant life if we limit theological issues to those raised by Young, as Cherylu and EricW keep trying to do. If people want to discuss atonement generally, or in relation to churches that Young does not belong to, perhaps they can request that CMP start a post on that.
Back to Young and universalism. Young is now appearing at a teaching conference based on his book: “The Shack Conference” – April 17-19, 2009. He will be appearing with three others, Malcom Smith, Ken Blue and C. Baxter Kruger.
In the credits to The Shack, Bishop Smith listed under influences. A poster on Smith’s blog writes, “It [The Shack] has Malcolm’s fingerprints all over it! ” Smith is was a Biship in the Charismatic Episcopalian Church, but was demoted and then resigned over his divorces and remarriages (three). His current ministry is called “Unconditional Love Int’l.” and is based in Texas. He seems to be basically orthordox. Here is a taste from his book, “The Power of the Blood Covenant”, which will give a sense of how he influenced Young: “From, “The Power of the Blood Covenant”: “We may sum up the covenant love of God in the Old Testament by saying that it is the eternal covenant love of God committed to keep every word of his covenant promises. It is seen in His commitment to be there for us, His covenant people, every day and every hour to save, keep, protect, and care for us. Hesed tells us that God passionately loves us, longs for us, and pursues us even when we walk away from Him.”
Kruger, however, is a kind or type of universalist though he would be very careful in defining his terms as he has a very particular perspective on what Jesus accomplished.
Here is what he says on his own blog: “I have said repeatedly and in all of my lectures that the whole human race is included in Jesus Christ—and in his relationship with his Father, and in his anointing in the Spirit, and in his relationship with each person, and in his relationship with all creation. Jesus accomplished this inclusion in the power of the Holy Spirit in his incarnate life, death, resurrection and ascension as the fulfillment of his Father’s dreams for the human race. This is our ontology. It is our identity. It is who we are. It is what Jesus calls truth or reality. Our ontology or identity is distinct from our experience, because our experience is shaped by what we believe in our darkness (see Ephesians 4:17ff). ”
And: “The gospel is not the news that we can receive an absent Jesus into our lives, but the stunning news that Jesus has received us into his.”
And: ” will deal again at another time with the problem of universalism (see The Great Dance and Across All Worlds, and just about everything I have ever written or spoken). Suffice it to say here that the universal inclusion of the human race in Jesus and in his relationship with Papa and the Holy Spirit is both great news and exposing news. It declares to the world who God is and why the Lord created this universe and humanity within it. And it declares to us who we are and why we are here and what is going on in our lives. The news of what Jesus has made of his creation in himself is fantastic news, full of hope for us all, but it is also news which exposes our utter blindness and brokenness.”
And (with specific reference to “The Shack”, which book Kruger likes and affirms): ““Does that little girl who’s never heard the name of Jesus, cowering in a corner dreading another night of abuse, does she get to feel Papa’s touch?” What we know about this little girl is that she is included, that Jesus (who has suffered the fatal capacity of feeling what it is like to live in somebody else’s skin) is with and in her sharing her terror whether she has heard of his name or not, that the Holy Spirit is bearing witness with her spirit that she is included and loved, that in Jesus Papa is present, and that she is living in a terrifying hell, which is the real world she experiences and wars against the witness of the Holy Spirit.”
And: “On the basis of Jesus Christ, and in the truth of what he has done for and with and to the human race in his own incarnate life, death, resurrection and ascension, we proclaim to every person that they have been adopted, included in Jesus’ relationship with his Father and in his relationship with the Holy Spirit. And in Jesus’ name we call them to walk in the light of Jesus, promising joy and peace in believing, and warning of continued misery in unbelief. We pray to the Holy Spirit, who in Jesus, has accustomed himself to dwell in the fallen human race, to reveal Jesus ‘in’ every person so that they may know the truth and be set free by it.”
And (to show that Kruger believes that there may be some continued (but for how long?) resistance to our ontological inclusion into the life of Jesus): “As to what happens to people when they die, my answer is that they meet Jesus (see previous blog on judgment), and in meeting Jesus they will see themselves in his light. What they do with the revelation of Jesus Christ and of themselves in him, I cannot say, and neither can anyone else. Hopefully they will all say hallelujah. But it is entirely possible, as I have said repeatedly, that they may continue in their darkness and obstinate wrong belief, thus continuing to suffer the miserable brokenness of believing in themselves and their own marred vision, and continuing to suffer the non-peace and terrible self-centered sadness and anxiety that arise from not knowing (biblically speaking) Jesus so as to be set free from themselves and the darkness. So, ontologically we are all in Christ and Christ is sharing himself and all he is and has with us, including and especially the Holy Spirit. Because of Jesus Christ our ontology never changes.”
And this is how Young and Kruger have influenced people re universal reconciliation (from a posted reply on Kruger’s blog): “Earlier today I penned these words in The Shack Forum in a vain attempt to communicate the unconditional love our Triune God has for us:
I just think both stances (Arminianism and Calvinism) underestimate the love, forgiveness, mercy and effectiveness of our Triune God (Father, Son and Spirit). And if I am in error for believing God is too loving, too forgiving, too merciful and Jesus too successful, well I will gladly suffer His admonition when someday we meet face to face.
My heart fairly leaped when I read your sentence about giving Jesus to much credit. Maybe I am not as much a heretic as some say….”
I submit that the grounds for concern expressed by cherylu and me are well founded, and that any advice concerning this book that fails to bring up these concerns is poor advice, lacking in discernment.
regards,
John
mbaker on 22 Apr 2009 at 12:48 pm #
Eric W, and Dr. G.
A point that needs to made here, is that God does decide the difference between right and wrong. What is sin to me may not be sin to another, however, which is clearly obvious in this discussion.
I think the Bible clearly spells out what God considers sin. We might put other names on it like faults, weakness, flaws, bad habits, mistakes, and the like, but sin is still sin to God. To say that He will not tell us the difference between right and wrong is silly. He already has.
But, the main point to answer, Dr. G’s question, is that Christ died for our sins, but He did not abolish sin itself, and will not until His final judgment upon the world. That does not make His atonement incomplete because He conquered sin and death, but it will not be completely eliminated until that time. I think the Bible makes that pretty clear, so if you are using another source to base this argument on, then what are you using instead?
Is the Bible your final authority on these matters or not? From the looks of the way this thread has gotten off point entirely, I think we are getting away from the main questions raised about The Shack by many Christians, and into theological discussions which tend to bring what the Lord Himself ( the real one) says into question.
EricW on 22 Apr 2009 at 1:12 pm #
After Godwin’s Law and Godlose’s Law comes Nuffsaid’s Law, which is: After a thread has received and/or generated more than 100 comments/responses, it is for most intents and purposes time to move on, as most of what can be said will have already been said, and much of what will subsequently be said will only be tangential to the original discussion and/or will be spinoffs of spinoffs of discussions.
Dr. G. on 22 Apr 2009 at 1:30 pm #
An attempted summary of the discussion:
The main question on Young was: did he hold to some kind of Universalism? Are all saved by Jesus … including even agnostics and Catholics or whatever? And is that belief good or bad (as some asked; others assumed it was bad).
We then explored Universalism: whether 1) in fact, all are saved already, or soon to be, by some kind of Universal redemption. Which involved the issue of … did Jesus successfully die for anyone? Did he die for anything? Our sins? And especially, did he die for everyones sins (universalism)?
Then there was another issue, raised by the author in his interview: 2) does God punish sins at all? The Author suggested that he did not; because “sin is its own punishment.”
Are these two ideas related? Perhaps these two issues are related in that … the author believes that God, having already saved everyone (or some such Universalist belief?), therefore has no need for further punishment of sins?
3) Related to this in turn: atonement. We are asking who is saved. And looking for a key salvific act, finds us looking at the sacrifice of Jesus. Which is said to have saved us. In some theologies. By in part, atonement.
These various apparently disparate issues therefore might be somewhat related and relevant. So that our brief survey of “Universalism” and “atonement” might have served a purpose. Indeed, they are central if we want to “judge” Young’s orthodoxy or denomination.
4) Once we have decided what Young is saying, then we need to determine whether he is right or wrong. a) Some might simply say that Young clearly does not belong to their own church; and therefore, he is against God. End of subject.
However, b) the whole purpose of theology in part, many would say, is to look around more broadly. Here, a discussion of the different theologies available on the subject of Salvation and Punishment, is directly relevant. I personally mentioned for example, that there are elements of Catholic ecumenism, that would allow and confirm a kind of universalism; similar to that espoused by Young. So that Young is justified, from the point of view of say, ecumenist Catholic Theology. And perhaps some other theologies, yet to be specified. Like say, literal protestantism.
5) Having analytically teased out major issues in Young, and having explored the many theologies that might defend or condemn him, the Final question for many is: there seem to be many theologies available on this question. So which theology is the “right” one? Which one would a “discerning” person pick?
Here, rather than simply stipulating that Young is not a conventional Southern Baptist, say, and is therefore simply wrong on that basis, rather than take this or that theology or church, as the final word, it has been useful to “digress” for a moment, into … discussing the relative merits of different theologies.
6) After this discussion of various theologies, some may not be satisfied any more, that a traditional, follow-Christ-my-way-or-go-to-Hell theology, is correct. While others will simply feel that their go-to-hell theology has outed a heretic.
7) In this forumn, a casual survey (here) might hazard to suggest that it seems that two major different points of view, two major theologies, have been expressed: a) Fundamentalist, letter-of-the-law, follow-Jesus- literally-or-be-damned Christianity; vs. b) a liberal, inclusivist, universalist theology. It seems that a useful outline, of a case for each theology, has been made here.
As to which is right and which is wrong? Many will simply believe a) that a heretic – Young – has been outed. And his condemnation and judgement are already firmly on their lips. Others though will support b) a more – yes – “Liberal” theology. Some will say that the Bible itself says, that no one but God himself, knows who is really good and who is bad; who really followed him … and who was mistaken, “deceived,” about what God really wanted.
Just what people decide is their business. In any case, this discussion may have been useful to many, to look at both sides of the issue. And then to make up their own minds.
Note that most major arguments here were made with reference to the Bible itself; people differ as to what the Bible says.
Dr. G. on 22 Apr 2009 at 1:39 pm #
How do you say that 1) Christ conquered sin, and his victory was complete … and then say that however, 2) still however, somehow, sin goes on, and will not be eliminated until the end of time?
How do these two statements logically reconcile with each other?
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 1:51 pm #
I will stand on my claim that it is possible to know the Bible and not know God. What are we supposed to grow in knowledge of? Doctrines? Creeds? Mottoes? No, no no. You are supposed to grow in knowledge of Jesus Christ by relationship first.
What does it mean to rightly divide the word of God? Does it mean you have to take 65,293 study courses in Greek and Hebrew? Does it mean you have to spend 93,873 hours poring over one verse to get an understanding of it? Yes Jesus and Paul did say you should learn. But what is to be the outcome of all the effort put into it?
You will learn nothing at all unless the Holy Ghost teaches you. That is plain and simple. And the foolishness of God is higher than man’s intellect so in this life you will never even scratch the surface about God. It is foolish to even make the attempt. If you can’t accept God in the simplest form, as a child does, you will never accept Him in the grandest sense. It is impossible. We can’t compare knowledge of Jesus to that of a doctor or lawyer.
But I will share a little more secret, all these theology books don’t actually teach you who Jesus is from relationship perspective, they teach you how to be a good doctrine holder. CMP is a good teacher but he is not the replacement. I have to read the Bible myself.
Colossians 2:8
8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Dr. G. on 22 Apr 2009 at 2:15 pm #
KK: how do you know you are accepting the true Holy Spirit … and not instead, one of the many “false spirits” the Bible warned about?
Should you just trust to what you feel in you? The BIble warns you not to. The “heart” can be “deceived.” So we need to try to find out which spirits are from God, and which are not. For that reason, we are attempting to learn “discernment”; and/or theology here.
John C.T. on 22 Apr 2009 at 2:20 pm #
Eric W., your continuing quotes of “laws” is disrespectful to, and dismissive of, the bloggers here, and each is a statement that the conversation should end. If the conversation is no longer relevant to you, you are not required to visit, read or post. No one is making you. Unless CMP closes the thread to prevent further posts, those of us who are still interested will continue the dialogue. If you have something useful to post (which your laws are not), please do post.
regards,
John
JohnO on 22 Apr 2009 at 2:27 pm #
Kara,
I beg to differ with some of your conclusions (and apologies if I have misread what these are).
We cannot divorce theology and scripture. They must exist in dialogue. When we interpret scripture we do so in the light of our understanding of God (theology) and when we speak of God (literally what theology is) then we must do so with reference to His revelation as witnessed in scripture. Orthodoxy is merely the accepted confines of the outcome of that dialogue – but it can never be fixed. To do that is to turn theology or scripture into an idol or, if you will, put God in a box.
To dismiss theology as ‘merely’ doctrine is simplistic. In academic circles that may well be true, but what is being done here is the working out of that theology/scripture dialogue.
When we witness to our relationship with Christ, we are ‘doing theology’ and revealing scripture. They cannot be separated.
That does not mean you need to be an academic to be a Christian, but it does mean that orthodox (note the lower-case ‘o’) Christianity needs to exist, and can only exist, where the confines of the dialogue are defined and being redefined. Everyone has a part to play in that conversation, but it needs to be acknowledged that it can never be a simplistic one.
But I am curious. Please describe God to me in the ’simplest form’ so that I may accept Him. Would you tell me that He loves me? Or would you tell me that I am going to be punished as a sinner? Either way you’ll need to explain what they mean and then its not so simple.
When Jesus taught that we need to accept the gospel ‘as would a little child’, He was not suggesting unquestioning innocence. He was saying that we need to set aside the ‘box’ we create as we grow up and understand that there is a lot more still to learn.
EricW on 22 Apr 2009 at 2:47 pm #
John C.T.:
My Nuffsaid’s Law comment was in response to mbaker’s post (#144). It’s my fault for writing it such that it seemed to be addressed to all and everyone.
I should have started it with:
and ended it with a smiley.
Anyway, I am personally applying Nuffsaid’s Law and moving on to CMP’s other threads, as well as to other blogs and things. I don’t think there is more I can say, and the links to article’s like DeYoung’s have given me enough of what I need to think about and read re: The Shack and its critics.
Shalom, y’all.
John C.T. on 22 Apr 2009 at 2:51 pm #
Shalom as well, EricW. I see now how you intend your comment to be taken, thanks for the update (I assume that you’ve also noted that I tried to support and continue your question re universalism).
regards,
John
mbaker on 22 Apr 2009 at 2:55 pm #
Dr. G,
I think the Bible does an ample job of making that distinction of the question you asked about why if Christ conquered sin and death why does it still continue? So that we don’t get into another exhaustive round of what the atonement is and what it means, and also why sin continues, I would suggest you do a thorough word study on the topics, using scripture as your guide. Then, as you have said yourself, you will be then be more informed of what both sides are talking about.
I prefer to stick to the specific questions raised in the book that are relevant to this particular thread.
Perhaps CMP could do a post on the atonement and sin that would address your particular issues more specifically.
mbaker on 22 Apr 2009 at 3:04 pm #
Eric W.
Thanks for your clarification. I like the Godwin’s law best too!
God bless.
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 3:33 pm #
I would like to clarify my discussion, every Muslim person I have come in contact with, online AND in person all have a curious item in their house, it’s called a Bible that has an Old and New Testament. It usually is the KJV. And these Muslims study this Bible a lot and know quite a bit about the verses.
My point is this, through all of their efforts at attempting to understand it come short. They usually look for things to find contradictory but with all their hard work studying the Bible they remain Muslim.
Most of the converts have been led to the Lord not through being told which doctrine is right, but by the simple messages. You can study all day long and not get it right at the end of the day, but you can come up with some interesting ideas. They spend quite a bit more study than most Christians do.So what good did all the studying do them if it left them in the condition they are in?
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 3:35 pm #
John O
In 151…
God Is.
Nothing more simple than that.
cheryl u on 22 Apr 2009 at 3:48 pm #
JohnO,
I have been feeling bad every since that one comment I made this morning that I apoligized to EricW for. That was an ill conceived comment all around and simply came out of my frustration with the subject at hand and the fact that I couldn’t believe it was really necessary to be having this conversation on a Christian blog. You certainly weren’t picking apart every verse on the subject–you only mentioned reservations about one specific one I had brought up so that was a huge exaggeration. I want to apologize to you for that.
John C.T. on 22 Apr 2009 at 4:04 pm #
Further to mbaker’s comment, with which I agree. I think all would agree that CMP’s website is conservative and orthodox in it’s theology; CMP willingly admits to being reformed and calvinist. Hence the issue in regard to Young and his book is not what is the correct view of the atonement (over which people can have varying views), BUT are Young’s views in line with orthodox theology and in line with reformed theology. So we take it as orthodox and therefore as given that God does punish sin and penal substitution is a partial description of what Christ did. This thread is for discussion about how close or far or in error Young is with respect to these theological positions, NOT whether these theological positions are correct. To digress into the latter would be a hijacking of this thread.
However, it does not appear that there is sufficient desire or effort to keep this thread on topic, to deal with issues of discernment (should one read it (or not), or recommend it (or not)), and issues that inform discernment with respect to this particular work (how much error has Young put into the book, and how apparent is that error). If this appearance proves true, I suppose I shall follow EricW. onto other threads.
regards,
John
JohnO on 22 Apr 2009 at 4:06 pm #
@Cheryl,
No apology necessary. Such is the nature of blog discussions that they can get passionate, but I certainly wasn’t offended by anything you said.
@KK
That’s pretty simple
What about my childlike (not childish) response, “Why?” (if you have kids you’ll realise that you can never, ever get away with simple answers).
On a more serious note though, you speak about accepting God on a simple level and reply that that means accepting that “God is.” Even the demons and Satan accept that ‘God is’, so there has to be more to it than that surely? And are we not called to accept the Gospel rather than God?
No need to answer – this is even more of a tangent as John CT points out
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 4:43 pm #
John O
Because it is so,
Hebrews 11:6
6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
1:come to God
2:accept He is
3:we seek
4:He rewards
That is pretty simple and if I start putting more into that then I pervert the scripture.
God said to Moses “tell them I AM sent you”.
mbaker on 22 Apr 2009 at 4:44 pm #
A brief clarification on my part of my last comment to Eric above. When I say I like Godwin’s laws best too, I hope everyone realizes I was not talking about the man’s reference to comparing folks with Nazi’s, but it was a pun, as in I like God-wins laws best. Just thought that I should make that more clear.
If anyone has one, or knows where we could get a specific list of what all Young’s questionable/unorthodox comments are in The Shack, so that we could put them side by side with what scripture says, I believe that would be helpful to keep the post on track.
My pastor’s wife is ga-ga over this book, and he preaches verse by verse out of the word of God, so I am wondering what and where this book’s overwhelming popularity is coming from.
For instance, is it cleverly designed to manipulate people’s emotions by touching some secret place in their hearts, by relying merely on certain popular streams of post-modern theology rather than proclaiming the complete substance of the gospel? Is it simply about the common grace God extends to all, i.e. it rains on the just and the unjust? And if so, how do we Christians touch people so deeply in a more orthodox way?
These are the real questions I think we need to be asking.
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 4:57 pm #
mbaker,
perhaps the answer is not so orthodox. God is not rigid as orthodoxy is. God is holy so by default He cannot be unholy. But God is smart enough to know how to reach people.
We know there was a certain day Jesus was born on, we just don’t know the day. But we still celebrate it as we always have. Does Jesus really make a deal out of the day? No He does not. But it was special enough that the entire host of heaven were celebrating. So let’s not be so rigid in our orthodoxy that we forget to be happy. God has it all under control and He knows what to do.
cheryl u on 22 Apr 2009 at 5:11 pm #
Kara,
I may be taking you all wrong here. But it sounds like you are saying that correct teaching/doctrine really isn’t all that important? Could you clarify for me please. I might be totally missing what you are getting at.
mbaker on 22 Apr 2009 at 5:16 pm #
Kara,
I don’t make it an either/or thing. I don’t think orthodoxy, at least as we are defining it here, is rigid in the sense of being legalistic but anchors itself both through our relationship with Christ, or better yet, His relationship to us, and His word to us. I see it as in John 1: 1-14 that God and His word are the same. Christ who was/is/and yet to come is the living proof of it.
So I am speaking of right relationship, through His grace and truth, when I personally speak of orthodoxy. Others may define it differently.
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 5:32 pm #
Cheryl
Of course I am not saying that. What I am saying is that people get carried away into other people’s ideas of theology without ever investigating it themselves.
We always have to study the Bible ourselves. And most theology programs are always bent toward doctrine and teach their theology from that viewpoint. And by doing so leave out a lot of truth because it most often contradicts the doctrinal view. Doctrine is not Theology.
We must make the distinction. Doctrine is not theology.
David Koresh had a theology. It formulated his doctrine. And yet David Koresh spent many hours studying but his conclusions came to a very frightening end. But he spent so much time trying to learn.
I would never want people to never learn, but I don’t want people to try to learn without God teaching them to begin with. I did not write the book. God wrote it (for those who jump on that, yes God wrote it, He just wrote it through people). And all those people never knew each other, they were spread across several thousand years so they must have been in one mind to bring about such unity.
What I do not like is people teaching doctrine as a guise under theology. And all great theologians had different doctrines and all it leads to is people scratching and fighting over which doctrine is correct.
Theology is the study of theism…not the study of doctrine. But many theologians forget that in order to build up their own viewpoints. We can disagree on many points, but at the end of the day what are we supposed to know? If we believe in Jesus and ask Him to show us the truth of Himself, He will do it. Besides many people had to when they had no access to Bibles.
When clergy was doing all the reading for the populace, it never led them right. The clergy became powerful, but it hurt in so many ways. That was my point.
cheryl u on 22 Apr 2009 at 5:33 pm #
Okay folks,
I hope you guys don’t give up on this thread just yet. I finally felt free to go and buy the book and start reading it. Haven’t gotten very far yet. But I saw something right at the start that no one has brought up. I want to read further before I say what I am thinking because this is a thought I don’t think I can pass along until I know for sure if I have grounds for my thoughts.
I’ll let you know as soon as I can. If what I am seeming is right, I think it has profound impact on how we may look at this book.
cheryl u on 22 Apr 2009 at 5:37 pm #
Kara,
Thanks so much for your clarification. I didn’t think you could really mean that. But I just didn’t get what you did mean. I think the only way to keep from getting wrong impressions here is to ask when we don’t understand what someone means. Now I won’t have to wonder any more!
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 5:38 pm #
I will use another simple analogy.
My mom and I were discussing building a sandwich and comparing it to people who make doctrines. Some put on ham, or turkey, or bologna and then work with the condiments. While we were thinking this might be ok, she said “but wait, what about when people put dirt or trash onto the bread. you can’t eat it then.”
All sandwiches have the same foundation…all doctrines have the same foundation. But it’s what is piled on that foundation that makes it worth eating or not.
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 5:40 pm #
Cheryl
I think we are ok, you have learned pretty much where I stand on many issues. I have to account to Jesus for my blog posts and my beliefs so I want to make sure I am as correct as I know to be.
mbaker on 22 Apr 2009 at 6:02 pm #
‘all doctrines have the same foundation. But it’s what is piled on that foundation that makes it worth eating or not.’
And it is the foundation that needs to be there to support what is piled on top. So it works both ways. Christ is the both the cornerstone and the head of the church, according to scripture. The Alpha and the Omega. It his truth we follow.
Truth can always withstand scrutiny, but garbage is still garbage, even when it’s wrapped in gift wrapping and tied with a bow.
I am hoping the latter is not the case with The Shack, but that it has simply struck a deep emotional chord with folks who can identify, at least in some measure, with the various characters in the book.
As a southerner, I could readily identify with some of the characters in Gone With The Wind, and while I was raised in the same area the book was set in, I knew that while it had some good historical fact in it, along with the fictional characters, there was also some artistic license taken with some of the historical events as well.
However, even now, when folks visit that area of the south, they want to know where Tara was. When we would tell them Tara never existed, they can’t believe it, because the author made it seem so real that folks came to believe it was actually a true story.
Kara Kittle on 22 Apr 2009 at 9:32 pm #
mbaker,
I thought that was based on a real character. But I know what you are saying. It was full of baseless stereotypes also. My family would have been one of those po’ white trash families…the less than genteel that weren’t looked favorably upon by the more respectable society. And we are just as Irish..lol.
That’s like Hee Haw or the Beverly Hillbillies. A man I know from Kentucky told me there was a man who came to visit and wanted to know if he could take vittles with them…Margaret Mitchell wrote a good story. It formed our opinions about the old south. Tara by the way is a real place in Ireland. Perhaps you can direct people in that direction.
John C.T. on 22 Apr 2009 at 11:20 pm #
List of Young & Shack errors or dangers:
I agree with DeYoung that “How can I have a deep relationship with God, or with a human being for that matter, if it is based on lack of understanding, or even misunderstanding, of who the other person is? Does the lack of knowledge of the person
of God lead to lack of faith and false or faulty living or practice?”
1. Rejection of the body of Christ: Young in practice has rejected church bodies in favour of house meetings. I guess he tries (like so many others) to ignore that fact that the body of Christ is made up of sinners and that church life—-however organized—-has always been messy (Paul and Corinthians comes to mind). So, in his book he denigrates churches as unnecessary and misleading. Further he claims that nothing useful was learnt in seminary. Highly untrue, and a slap to all those Godly professors. This is not an error in doctrine, but is an unwarranted, untrue and misleading characterization of the body of Christ and of the persons who work therein and of what can be learnt and accomplished therein. He effectively teaches that we can learn directly from God and experience all that we need (well, except for what he teaches in his book and conferences of course, but I’ll ignore the hypocrisy for now), and that it is possible to read the Bible without paying attention to language and culture of its writers.
2. Rejection of the principle of Scripture alone as the full and final authority, and denigration of Scripture. Despite the Bible’s testimony to its own unique qualities, the majority of The Shack’s references to Scripture are negative in their tone: “In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture…. God’s voice had been reduced to paper…. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients…. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book”. Hey, I’m all for spiritual experiences and things laid on one’s heart or words of knowledge, but experience is checked by and subordinate to Scripture. It is very misleading and hurtful to Christians to suggest otherwise. I agree with Challies, “The Bible testifies to its own uniqueness and sufficiency. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16,17). It testifies to its own perfection and power. “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7).
3. He teaches, and his book does support, universal reconciliation. By embracing universal reconciliation, “Paul creates his own view of how love and holiness or justice relate and neglects reflecting all those texts that talk about the judgment of God on the unbelievers who reject him. By not embracing both truth and love Paul gives a distorted view of the nature of God.” In addition to what I have posted above about universal reconciliation, it is important to recognize the distortion that Young gives to Scripture. Young writes that one day, when all is revealed,
every one of us will bow our knee and confess in the power of Sarayu that Jesus is the Lord of all Creation, to the glory of Papa” (248). However, he writes as if we will all (everyone) will say this in the experience of eternal life and love with God. However, in Scripture all will acknowledge Jesus as Lord, but some will do it to their judgment and eternal death, and others will do it to salvation and eternal life. Related to this is his support for pluralistic universalism, for when Young writes that ““Those who love me come from every stream that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions” (182), he clearly does not mean that they are saved out of those things but that such people are saved even though they remain mormons, etc.
4. He has a wrong view of sin and punishment. He has God say that he doesn’t punish (tell that to the people in Sodom and Gomorrah). “‘I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it” (page 119). That teaches what people in this modern age, indeed every age, want to hear. What people often need to hear and understand is their own sinfulness and God’s judgment of it and impending punishment (but not necessarily the “Sinners in the hand of an angry God” sermon, a la Jonathan Edwards). “Jesus will take vengeance . . . destruction” (2 Thes. 1:8-9)
5. I would consider it wrong to give God the father an image, even in fiction, or to personify him. I believe that the orthodox view is that neither God the father nor God the Spirit has ever appeared as a theophany (physical manifestation of God in human form). Now if this were pure fiction, I might not consider it so wrong, but the author wrote the book to communicate his theological ideas and added the fiction as a device to tie his thoughts together. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things” (Romans 1:22,23). This counts in all areas of our life, including fiction and theological teaching materials (as his book is).
6. I think that even in fiction it is wrong to portray God as a woman. God was greatly offended by and judged Israel and the adjacent nations for combining God with female deities. I would also suggest that God needs to appear as a woman to jolt people out of their comfort zones or to heal things relating to poor fathers. The book has a warm and cozy maternal approach, which is problematic if the problem is fatherlessness (absent, poor or bad). As Blog and Mablog wrote, “There is no way we can hide from ourselves that we have a need for a father, but we cannot bring ourselves to repent, and have our hearts turned back to actual fathers. We cannot bring ourselves to honor our (admittedly sinful) fathers, so that our lives might go well for us in the land that God gave to us.”
7. Young has God saying that Christ is only the best way to him.
8. Young teaches that there was / is no subordination of the Son to the father. He misunderstands, mischaracterizes, and wrongfully puts down obedience. He teaches an incorrect and inadequate theory of equality. He teaches what suits our democratic ears and culture, and bends scripture to fit it, and how he (Young) would like God to be.
9. He molds God into the image that he would like God to fit into, one that suits his cultural and personal tastes and prejudices, and teaches, effectively, that that approach is fine for us to take as well.
10. Wrong view of, and opposition to, the idea of judging. The Bible requires us to exercise judgment, both in this life and in the next. There is a right and wrong way to do, but it is wrong to condemn it entirely.
11. Wrong view of Christian liberty and a complete misinterpretation of what Paul wrote: ” Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command. Jesus is both the promise and its fulfillment.”
“Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?”….
“Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” (page 203)
12. Young does not interact with other views of these theological issues, and presents only his view, and presents it through an emotional device that creates a greater impact than is warranted, and presents a very limited and incomplete view of the subjects he covers (remember, it was not Paul’s intent to write fiction. He intended to write theology and explicitly ignored the rules of writing fiction).
13. I agree that the great danger of this book is that Paul “is subversive to the truth about a lot of things, including the nature of God and the eternal end of people, particularly the lost. He is subversive to the institutions of the church, the state, the
home. The book hinders rather than helps genuine spiritual growth and understanding.”
14. Young’s theology is often confusingly ambiguous or even contradictory. There are many statements that can be read as orthodox–but not necessarily. So people read into them what they want, though it is clear from statements outside the book that that is not what Young means. Moreover, people point to seemingly orthodox statements on redemption or forgiveness as if they offset his heterodox statements or prove that he is orthodox. He’s not; he’s a confusing mix of orthodox and heretical and can write contrary statements on the same or following pages.
15. His discussion of the nature of the Trinity is confused, and confusing. It certainly is not how it is or how it should be taught. I find it startling that anyone should write, as more than one person has that this book changed their view of the Trinity. God forbid (seriously). He certainly draws on Baxter Kruger’s teachings on periochoresis (mutual indwelling), but I don’t think that Kruger’s teachings are entirely orthodox and they go well beyond what is taught in the Eastern Orthodox (which has thought more deeply about that topic than western churches).
16. An incorrect portrayal of man in relation to God and in the presence of God. Mack is entirely too familiar with God the Father. I agree with Challies, “One of the most disturbing aspects of
The Shack is the behavior of Mack when he is in the presence of God. When we read in the Bible about those who were given glimpses of God, these people were overwhelmed by His glory. In Isaiah 6 the prophet is allowed to see “the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up” (Isaiah 6:1). Isaiah reacts by crying out
“Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (Isaiah 6:5)” God loves us and enters into relationship to us, and as Jesus took on the nature of man, but he is also awesome.
There is no reason to read this book, not even to understand those who read it. Reading sound theology will enable you to deal with the distorted views of others, regardless of how they come to those view or where they get their error from (including this book). Did I read it? Only enough to interact on this blog and warn others about it. The theology in it is not sophisticated enough to hold my interest, by which I mean that it is not deep, not nuanced, not well read, not broad, not bible based, not interactive, not critical. Plus the writing is too preachy, it’s like those ridiculous new christian books (neo, or what’s his name). Plus his depiction of God is so irreverant that I feel disgusted reading it.
regards,
John
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 12:23 am #
John C.T.,
Thanks for that list. I am about half way through the book now and I am certainly seeing some of these things come through.
One thing that has bothered me is the irreverence that I see in the book. When Mack first met “Papa”, he was surpried that the Father would have “a questionable sence of humor”. I noticed that too. God doesn’t come across as the holy God of the Bible. This God does indeed seem to be something else than the One we find in the pages of His Word.
I think something else that I have read that really bothers me that was not specifically listed above was when Papa was speaking about the incarnation and she said, “When we three spoke ourselves into existence.” Jesus was the one that was incarnated–not “we three”.
Something else that really bothers me is a discussion Mack was having with all three members of this godhood. They asked him about each of his family members and Mack was surprised that they really didn’t seem to know what he was going to answer. It was explained to him that for the sake of relationship, they were “limiting themselves”, choosing not to bring to mind what they knew for the sake of that relationship. I find that to be quite unbiblical.
I am just now in the part where they are discussing that there is no subordination of the Son to the Father.
I have found this to be, from the point of fiction only, an interesting story so far. And from an emotional standpoint, it can certainly draw you in. The thought of any parent losing a much loved daughter in the way Mack lost Missy is a “tear jerker” as the old saying goes. Because of that very fact, it is very easy to let down your gaurd and let the flawed theology just pass you by without giving it too much thought. So I can understand how people can read it and enjoy it and maybe not be that concerned. But people are saying that it is changing them, their view of God and even their view of the trinity. So the theology is certainly affecting a lot of people. I can see that at the least, it could give people a much more relaxed view of God– one without the necessary Biblical fear of Him that we need to have.
mbaker on 23 Apr 2009 at 8:07 am #
John CT,
Thanks for compiling that list. That was most helpful.
I think it gives us a lot more to follow on this thread than just vague generalities.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 8:50 am #
Of course Young “makes many mistakes”; so do “we” all, said the Apostle James. (To even include the Apostles who wrote our Bibles?).
By the way, I myself don’t defend Young exactly; I’m just interested in using his work, as a provocative way of raising issues. And opening up discussion. Which is probably the spirit in which it was offered up, and put on this blog.
Thus many of us discuss it; not to endorse it. Even when some appear to defend it, it not out of real advocacy; but simply to inspire discussion. Discussion which, even if it rejects THE SHACK, still teaches many some basic principles of Theology. As we explore many issues.
Don’t confuse academics who play the “devil’s advocate,” for a moment for purposes of debate, with the Devil himself. As many of you seem to.
mbaker on 23 Apr 2009 at 9:07 am #
And let’s not confuse rabbit trails with the rabbit, either, Dr. G.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 9:33 am #
C:
1) Many scholars translate the (apparently Aramaic; ancient Persian/Arabic) term Jesus used for the father – ABBA – as being in fact, informal: “Pappa.”
2) If Jesus was the “Word,” if in the “beginning was the Word,” then in a sense, God spoke himself into existence. While we, when we adopt the Word, likewise speak our new being into existence. (It’s also an interesting reference to the work of a writer; speaking a character, into existence).
3) The issue with Mac is interesting; and reflects an issue in theology; of predestination, etc.. If in fact, God knows everything, then he knows how we will decide to act, or answer, every time, even before we do it. Therefore, in what sense or why, does God a) ever ask questions of us? And/or b) blame us for anything? Since everything we do is on a trajectory in part created by, or in any case known to, God.
To be sure, “free will” is thought to be part of the anwer. But “free will” theory has problems too. So perhaps Mac is right to be curious, surprised, here.
By the way, Catholics (and some Protestants) hold that Jesus, if he was truly God, would never ask God questions – like “why have you abandoned me?” Since, as God himself, he should already know the answers. Therefore, to explain this, some theologians have come up with such a concept as, some kind of voluntarily limited consciousness. In Jesus.
The Shack might make some theological mistakes somewhere; but here? The author seems very well informed in fact, on theology.
mbaker on 23 Apr 2009 at 9:40 am #
Just curious, Dr. G. Are you an Open Theist? Many of your arguments seem to suggest this.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 9:48 am #
I know some theology; but honestly don’t know enough theology yet, to know what an “Open Theist” is.
My real area of specialization is elsewhere, than in technical theology.
I could look it up; might do that.
In the meantime, to be sure, I don’t like labels. Or limiting myself with them.
Remember, I “supported” (or better said, discussed) Universalism here, merely rhetorically, as a device to stimulate discussion. And in the interest of fairness; to give all sides, an ear, and a voice. For purposes of free and open debate. Not advocacy.
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 10:03 am #
I finished reading the book. Sat up late last night and finished the last little bit this a.m. I may spoil the story here for any one that is still planning to read it, but I don’t know how to explain my concern without doing that.
In general I still agree with what most of the reveiws have said regarding the problems in this book. Some things I thought had been overblown and weren’t that big a deal.
There was only one area that folks thought to be a major problem that I thought had been seriously misinterpreted.
All of that said, I did find what to me were serious problems in the book. I noted some of what I saw in my comment last night.
However, to me the most serious problem here is, the way I understood the book, it seems to me that Young is more than just hinting at universal reconciliation here.
To start with, there was the quote from Papa that I have focused on so much in the past discussions here–I don’t need to punish sin, it is it’s own punishment. It is not my purpose to punish it.
Then there is a point where Mack is told that he has to be the judge and decide which of his children he will send to an eternal hell. (After all, this is what he believes Papa does, right?) When he is forced to make a choice, he said he would rather die for them and the point is made that is what Jesus did for us. Which is of course correct. So he does speak of eternal punishment. However…
In the next conversation on the subject Papa tells him that everyone in the whole world has already been forgiven because of what Jesus did but “not everyone will choose relationship.” At first I thought he meant that those that didn’t choose relationship were, of course, the ones that would be in that eternal hell.
However, the relationship that is talked about is all in terms of letting Him live fully through us in life, (which of course is good) and how that will change the world around us. Nothing is said about it being necessary to have this relationship to be given eternal life after death.
And then the final piece here that makes me believe this way about his position. Without going into great detail here, there is a point in this story where God opens Mack’s eyes to see things as they really are. All beings, humans, animals and God are these light beings radiating ever changing streams of color. Jesus is seen as the King of Kings. There is a huge group of people there and Mack wonders if his dead daughter is one of them but he can’t tell. They are surrounded by angels, who are also light. And his father, the one that was a church goer but an extremely abusive alcoholic that beat his whole family is also there. Note–a huge group of people including at least one known to be dead with seemingly no distinction made between if they had “relationship” with Him in life or not. Mack’s father certainly did not have the kind of relationship Papa was talking about that he offered that would of made the world around him a much better place. And when Mack and his father saw each other, they were reconciled. And the whole group began worshipping and praising Jesus.
Maybe that doesn’t seriously sound like universal reconcilaiton to you–a form of everyone will be saved, but it does to me.
mbaker on 23 Apr 2009 at 10:19 am #
Dr. G,
You were the one who labeled yourself as an academic playing ‘devil’s advocate’ and the presumption was we were confusing you with the Devil.
So let’s dispense with that kind of silliness, shall we, and get back to discussing the post.
Here’s point 11, which John CT has kindly summarized for discussion:
“11. Wrong view of Christian liberty and a complete misinterpretation of what Paul wrote: ” Jesus laid the demand of the law to rest; it no longer has any power to accuse or command. Jesus is both the promise and its fulfillment.”
“Are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?”….
“Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” (page 203)”
Here we have Young denying something Jesus Himself said, that He did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. Luke 16:17 has Jesus speaking again:”But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void.”
If we are to carry Young’s theory to his logical conclusion of there being no rules, we could even use this theory to nullify the command of Jesus to love our neighbor as ourself, which is supposedly the theme of the book.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 10:36 am #
Note our remarks on “pappa” above; a widely accepted translation from the Aramaic ABBA.
As far as most of us – Christians – being saved already in some way? In conventional theology, Jesus died for our sins and therefore, we are partially “saved” already. How far does that salvation go? Does the book say? There are many opinions on this, manyr theologies, as we found above. Many here regard this question as beneath their contempt, and well-settled. Perhaps we will look at it again however, some day.
Parts of the Bible (in my memory) suggest that Jesus came “that all might be saved”? So that here again, in a sense, we – even all – are partially saved already? It is just just a matter of whether we accept that or not?
In conventional church language: Jesus is always with all of us, and already died to (partially?) expiate our sins, and to save us. But somehow, we don’t really get saved, until “you accept Jesus in your heart”?
Many hope everyone will be saved. By this or some other means. Many theologies suggest that is possible. Others don’t.
Is Univeralism Biblical? The Old Testasment at times suggest not. But the New is quite a bit more liberal: you can be a good Samaritan – not a jew or Christian at all – and yet be a better “neighbor,” beloved by Jesus.
There might be some other passages in the Bible that suggest it: I dont’ have time to check this.
Though as for the parts of the BIble that apparently don’t support it? Many scholars suggest we take many parts of the Bible – as Jesus said – as “figures” of speech, or metaphors, or “parables.”
So that things like severe scenes of “judgement” and “fire” – might be less solid, more spiritual, than many have thought.
Just to make up a hypothetical argument for the much-demonized and judged, Universalism.
I’m not Catholic by the way; but they dominated Theology for 1,500 years. Suppose we look at what they say now and then. They (and perhaps some Protestants?) hold that to be sure, that an impure person cannot get into Heaven. But since none of us are that pure, they hopte that (constant, Biblical) references to a purifying “fire” refer to a moment – or say, in a place called “Purgatory” – where our remaining impurities are burned out. Protestants might allow something similar in some way somehow. Which would mean that even sinners – who knows, even non-Christians – might get into heaven.
Then too, as for those who are doing everything – or lots – that God, Christ tells them to do? Are they assuredly saved? The Bible tells us that many people who think they are following the “Christ,” and calling on his “name” constantly – “Lord, Lord,” – are actually hypocrits; or deceived persons who following a false Christ.
In which case, some rather very good “Christians,” don’t get into Heaven. And many apparently bad persons, even non-Christians, can get there.
Hypothesizing here, again. But quoting constantly from the Bible.
To be sure, I don’t have my Bible handy here; and my computer is not reliable enough to flip back and forth between computer and Bible right now. I apologize for any Biblical mistakes. Or for that matter, my many computer errors too.
Still, I would say, just superficially, there might be enough of a case for Young here … that we should avoid “judge”ing him too quickly; especially since God tells us that those who “judge” others, will be judged in turn.
And so forth.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 10:45 am #
The discussion on “law” by Paul – in fact, all of Paul – is incredibly obscure. Anyone who says he has the absolutely final word on Paul … I personally do not trust.
Regarding Paul on the “law”? Parts of the text seem to tell us that 1) Jesus abolished the “law” of “Moses” and so forth; or 2) “fullfilled” ancient prophesies, and therefore met the criterion that the law would not be abolished, until “all had been fulfilled.”
3) In any case, if you hold that all the laws of the Old Testament are still in effect … then if your chruch meets on a Sunday, you are not precisely, exactly, honoring “Honor the Sabbath”; which for Jews, is Friday nite to Saturday nite.
4) While note that many of our laws – which require death for adultry for example, or even gathering bread on, or working on a Sabbath – were apparently argued against by Jesus himself. (“It is written; butI say unto you”). And again, are in any case not enforced by many Christians today; even those that claim to follow the “law.”
5) For these and other reasons, most theologians today do accept the idea that somehow, some old Testament “law”s might be … stretched? Dropped? On the authority of Jesus … and parts of Paul note noted in your comments above.
6) Which reminds me of a basic principle of Biblical theology: don’t just cherry-pick the parts of the BIble that seem to fit a given argument. But examine, present, them all.
But enough basic lessons in Theology. As much of it as I know.
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 10:51 am #
mbaker,
Just to maybe clarify one point you made above regarding not being under any rules. Those quotes are definitly in the book. In his working them out though, he seems to be saying that if we are letting His life live through us (relationship) we will be doing all of those things. But through relationship–not following rules.
mbaker on 23 Apr 2009 at 10:55 am #
Dr. G. said:
“Still, I would say, just superficially, there might be enough of a case for Young here … that we should avoid “judge”ing him too quickly; especially since God tells us that those who “judge” others, will be judged in turn.
And so forth.”
Wow, what a sneaky way to win an argument by being condescending. We are not judging Young himself, but the beliefs he is promoting about God in The Shack , and how well they line with God says about Himself. Apparently you missed something somewhere.
You are using this and other threads as your personal soapbox to expound solely upon your own pet theories rather being willing to enjoin others on the real substance of the subject.
I for one am tired of it, because it is a clear waste of everyone’s time. So I will be leaving this thread as others have already done.
John C.T. on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:01 am #
Astute post, cherylu. My list was a bit idiosyncratic, cobbling together my views and views of others that I agreed with. Some criticisms I did not agree with (e.g., modalism) or were a bit overblown (some of Geisler’s and Mohler’s), so I didn’t include them. I think that sufficient posts have been made on this topic (two threads) that it can reasonably be held that CMP was incorrect to assert, “All I am saying is that I don’t see any major line being crossed” and “In the end, I thought that the book was . . . theologically sound.” I also submit that CMP’s recommendation was unsound in light of the fact that Young intended to write the book primarily as a vehicle to communicate his own personal theological views, and the fact people do report changing their views upon reading the book.
regards,
John
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:05 am #
Thank you. Note that most of these ideas, are not my personal theories, but are standard academic theology today.
Especially, the line that told us not to “judge” others quickly, is used in theology classes and elsewhere, to suggest we should keep our minds open to many controversial positions. For purposes of discussion.
I mention it here not to advocate it fully as my own; or slip it in as editorialization. But as yet another relevant idea. Though to be sure, I rather like that quote from the Bible. Should I dislike it?
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:19 am #
John CT:
Since we both like logical parsing, some points on the Semantics and logic, of your key concepts:
1) Are his “personal” views entirely personal? Perhaps his ideas, personally held … came in part from an established theology? (Universalism, etc.). A point on semantics, and logic here, therefore: to be sure, we often think of “personal” as implying that a) something is uniquely our own. But technically, b) it could mean … just ideas that we have in our person. Which does not preclude others having similar ideas.
Thus, there is no implication there, to preclude his “personal” ideas, having more widely-held theological underpinnings. I personally prefer eating hamburgers to eating rubber bands; but that opinion might also be … an objectively strong one as well. Thus Young’s description of his own work as “personal,” does not necessarily have Young asserting his opinion is unique, or not true. As you seemed to imply above.
2) While regarding the semantics of “Change”? If people change their views, logically again, the word and concept “Change” in itself, per se, does not imply change … for the worse. Perhaps many people were living a mistaken theology … and he corrected them.
To know whether a given “change” was for the worse, we need to clearly determine a) what the original position was; and b) that the change to a second opinion was wrong. Which honestly, I can’t say has been firmly established here, yet.
Note the evidence above, that his theology might not be wrong. If you can refute it all, then you might then have the logical right to say that anyone who’s view was “changed” by Young, was changed for the worse. But until then?
JohnO on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:33 am #
John CT.
I’m not sure your conclusion can be made so firmly and so dismiss the opinion of CMP.
I don’t have time at the moment to address all of the issues you note in your earlier post, but, whilst you might not agree with them, many are still within the bounds of orthodoxy as found in contemporary theology.
Someone (and I can’t remember who or where) made a comment about needing to be ‘more orthodox’. This is a foolish statement. Orthodoxy is not a single point of ‘rightness’, more of a big box with fuzzy edges which is, and only ever will be, a poor attempt at describing God.
Anyway, Cheryl, I’m glad you read the book (you might not be) and are able to express a more informed opinion of it.
Personally, I thought the book was pretty poorly-written fiction wrapped round some challenging theology. I do have issues with Young skirting too close to pluralism (the comment about Jesus being the ‘best way’ as opposed to the only way). But I have no issue with his depiction of God as a coloured female – because it was exactly that, a metaphorical depiction, just as many of the personified descriptions in scripture are metaphorical. I thought his depiction of the Trinity was pretty good and captured much of the core of perichoresis, a perfectly orthodox and, arguably, preferred expression of the Trinity.
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:41 am #
Dr. G,
The book of Revelation speaks of people being cast into the lake of fire which is also called the second death. In Mark 9 Jesus also speaks of being cast into hell where there is unquenchable fire. And in Hebrews 9 it tells us that is appointed unto men to die once and then comes the judgment. None of those speak to me in any way of univeral salvation.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:50 am #
Though, regarding Revelation:
1) “Death” itself is thrown into the fire. Does that mean that those who seemed dead, are no longer? Since death is abolished?
2) And how final is the punishment of “death” … when it seems there are many forms of it and layers? When does the series stop (if ever?).
3) Many other parts of the Bible, strongly suggest that the “fire” that “burns” us even forever … does not burn all of everyone; but merely “refines” us (somewhere Malachi …1-3?). Burns off impurities … and leaves the remaining pure soul standing.
All of which suggests universal salvation. Even through the hellfire you love to talk about here.
Again Catholics believe you can be in a firey “Purgatory,” and survive that.
Fundamentalists love to quote the hellfire part of Revelation; but look at the rest of the Bible too.
Can’t do it myself right now; why don’t you do it? Give the other side a fair representation, on your own.
To be sure, I don’t have my Bible here. These are quick remarks.
“That all might be saved.”
Then too, consider a “figure”ative, metaphorical interpretation of the Bible; as Jesus recommended.
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 12:13 pm #
Dr G,
Here are two scriptures where Jesus speaks of the punishment given as being eternal, nonending, or of the sin as being eternal, nonending and not forgiveable. I don’t think Jesus in any way speaks only of a temporary time in the lake of fire.
Matthew 25:46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Mark 3:29 “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”–”
Dave Z on 23 Apr 2009 at 12:43 pm #
Dr. G writes:
“Again Catholics believe you can be in a firey “Purgatory,” and survive that.
Fundamentalists love to quote the hellfire part of Revelation; but look at the rest of the Bible too.”
Catholics get the Purgatory concept out of the Apocrypha, so it is not generally supported by Protestants, who, in my opinion, dismiss the Apocrypha a little too quickly. Although I do not call it Scripture, it has been considered to be of some level of value throughout history and still is today by many outside of the RC church. The apocryphal books were in the Septuagint, which was probably the most common “Bible” at the time of Christ.
I love your remark about fundamentalists because it’s all too true that all of us (not just fundies) are often too quick to ignore scriptures that don’t fit our viewpoints. I even see it in respected commentaries. If we believe the Bible is God’s word, we can’t ignore any of it.
Dave Z on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:00 pm #
To Cheryl,
To follow-up my last point, many in the church have at least dared to hope for universal reconciliation (UR) – it has a strong historical foundation, because it has some Biblical foundation. Paul seems to support the concept in Romans 5, and 1Co 15:22 is pretty explicit – “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”
How many die? All. How many will be made alive? All. So, consciously or unconsciously, we add “Well, except those who don’t believe” but that is NOT what the verse says. So we apply “Scripture interprets Scripture” where, if we’re not careful, we choose the verses that agree with our presuppositions and use them to interpret the verses that trouble us.
It’s not as simple as we sometimes make it sound. I hope for universal reconciliation, but don’t expect it or teach it – I find too much opposing scripture. But I do see tension in scripture. Your post about the eternality of hell and the verses you quote are true, but check this guy’s blog – http://www.jeremyandchristine.com/articles/eternal.php.
He presents biblical support for his view of Annihilation. I disagree with him, but he supports his position pretty well. Again, my point is that our positions are often not nearly as simple as we make them out to be. People often have pretty good reasons for their viewpoints.
Finally, I don’t remember the details of the story (read the book sometime last year) but right off-hand, the fact that Mack’s father was there doesn’t trouble me. I don’t think it necessarily requires UR. We look on the outside, God sees the heart. Even murderers and adulterers can be forgiven. Some day King David can tell us all about it.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:05 pm #
Z:
Thank you.
And also by the way, there are many, many references in everybody’s Bible, even the Protestant one, to a “fire” that “refines” (Malachi 1-3 among a dozen of other references).
And what is the nature of that “fire”? Protestants don’t believe in 1) Purgaory. And yet however, many Protestant churches often metaphoricalize it; to suggest something similar. Many see it to be sure, as only the 2) Day of Judgement fire. But others suggest that 3) that one day, (even now?) we are are to be exposed to the “fire” of God. Perhaps the fire of his Spirit. Which burns off the “chaff” as all Bibles say; the dead “branches.” Our impurities. All words, note, from the Protestant bible.
4) And so perhaps the day of fire is something can happen .. even right now. As you begin to examine yourself, your theology … and begin to see theologcal sins; and burn off those false ideas.
So the “day” of “fire,” could be, even in our lifetime; even to day.
Which ideas will be burned off? Let’s see.
C:
Those two lines look challenging to a Universalist, to be sure. I’d have to a) review other translations; and b) look at their specific context. To see if they hold up as good counter-examples, to universalist elements of the Bible.
Just as a useful exercise: would you like to play the devil’s advocate for a second, and switch sides? And look to see yourself, if even these two could be re-read, in a way that would defend universalism?
Since I hate being the bad guy, full-time?
And since after all, the best way to learn to see the Bible as it is, is to very seriously, all by yourself, work at at least two points of view on every question?
Submit everything to a very, very rigorous debate, within yourself. “Iron against iron,” as some have said here.
Or a friendlier image: take the other side for a minute; learn to see it well, from the inside. And then decide whether it has a case or not.
Walk a mile in a Unviersalist’s shoes … and then and only then, see if you can condemn his point of view as false.
Mind taking the other side yourself for a while? Experimentally? For the sake of an exercise?
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:46 pm #
Dave Z,
But doesn’t the context of that verse in Corinthians disprove it’s universal application? The very next verse speaks of those that shall be made alive as, “they that are Christ’s at his coming.”
I Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming”
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:49 pm #
Apparently, by the way, the theological vocabulary includes a universalist form of Protestant Calvinism: “Amyraldianism.” Which we are told, believes in “atonement” for all; though to be sure, only the “elect” are “saved.” Significantly this is, we are told, “also known as four-point Calvinism and hypothetical universalism.”
“Universalism.” In Protestant Calvinism.
So apparently we don’t need to go to Catholicism, to find support for universalism. It’s right there, in the heart of the Protestant homeland: Calvinism itself.
To be sure, it seems limited in some ways. Still again, it would seem that a Protestant could claim to be some kind of “universalist,” and stress a kind of “atonement.” And still be Protestant. Indeed, even a Calvinist; the most serious and humorless form of Protestant.
Dave Z on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:53 pm #
BTW, Cheryl, I’m glad you decided to read the book. I know you went in with some bias, but I feel like you read it with a pretty open mind. Though I am curious about what you were hinting at in post 67….
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:56 pm #
Dave Z,
It also seems to me that the same argument holds for the Romans 5 passage you mentioned. Again, that chapter starts out be speaking of being justified by faith and therefore having peace with God. And the end of the chapter speaks of the gift being given to many and also speaks of it being given to those that recieve it. So again, I think the context tells us that it does not have a univeral application as in “all” men being saved.
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:04 pm #
Dave Z,
I forot about post # 67! I still think there is some basis for what I was thinking when I wrote that but not nearly as strongly now that I have finished the book. So I don’t think it something I should bring up, at least not unless some further reason appears to do so. I almost commented on my thoughts on it last night, but thought better of it. Since I don’t think I was right on with it now, I am really glad that I didn’t.
It sounded last night like pretty much everyone was ready to “jump ship” on this thread, and I was really hoping that if what I was thinking was correct, I would have the opportunity to post it and have it read because it could of been very significant. Sorry to leave you all hanging like that. But it is the best I can do for now.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:10 pm #
1) Many are saved. “All” in fact.
a) First those saved early, “first fruits.”
b) Then those saved later; at his second coming?
Lots are saved; in two rounds it seems.
c) But especially, is there anything here, that says that … there is anybody at all that are not saved? That Christ does not take in and save everybody, in the End? Especially since it starts with “all” being saved?
The Bible was not as simple as many thought. So far, in examples looked at closely here …. it still looks open to universalism.
So should we rush to condemn Young? The way the Pharisees crucified Jesus, in the name of – their idea of – God?
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:12 pm #
The Bible clearly states hell was created for the devil and fallen angels. So if it a state of death, you would think then the devil is going to die one day. The Bible does not say that. Does it say anywhere in the Bible that the devil is merely going to go down to the grave?
2 Peter 2
4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Hell is a real place. Jesus described what hell is like, gnashing of teeth, where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die and there is no water. The rich man lifted up his eyes from hell and said to Abraham that he is tormented in the flames.
OK if Jesus is making a point to describe what hell really is like, and states fallen angels are there…what does that mean?
God did not spare angels that sinned. They were reserved in chains. It does not imply either they would someday escape it through some purgatorial method.
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:17 pm #
Dr. G,
Please take another look at that Corinthians verse. Who is the firstfruits? “Christ the firstfruits.” Not other people. Jesus was the firstfruits of the resurrection.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:23 pm #
Not what it says in every translation.
In any case, say it is Christ that is first; still, many others follow.
And still nothing here to suggest that not everyone is saved, in that second group.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:31 pm #
NIV:
“The dead, the first fruits.”
Indeed, in most translations, it is “first fruits” plural; suggesting that just “Christ” singular, could not be the referent here.
Suggesting finally that another group – the dead in Christ etc. – are those who are the subject, the first fruits.
Though again in any case, it is the second group that is more interesting, and possibly all-inclusive. /Universal.
Dave Z on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:34 pm #
Cheryl, I agree, but I think the comparison has specific meaning, especially in the Romans passage – the many made sinners in Adam, the many made righteous in Christ. Regarding Adam, the many is all, but we’re to understand it differently later in the same sentence? Doesn’t feel right.
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:35 pm #
Regarding comment # 105
I haven’t seen any translation that doesn’t say that myself. On that blue letter bible site I gave you 13 out of 13 translations given there say that. Granted there may be some that don’t, but it certainly sounds like a majority translation to me.
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:49 pm #
No Dave, I agree, it may not feel right. But how can you ignore the context of who he says are the ones that are saved? The only way we can do that is to assume that everyone ends up believing before they die and it certainly doesn’t seem like that seems to be the case in the world as we know it. Or otherwise we have to believe that God gives everyone another chance after death which seems to fly in the face of that Scripture that says we are appointed once to die and after that comes the judgment.
And if it should be the case that all men end up believing in the end, on their deathbed by some kind of miracle of Godor in a second chance afterwards, why in the world would there be so many warnings in Scripture about the punishment and condemnation of unbelief and the warnings about eternal punishment if there was no chance any one was ever going to go there? And the commands to us to preach the Gospel to all–to tell them to repent and believe if it made no difference in the end? That would seem to be an exercise in utter futility to say the least. Nothing about any of this scenario has any logic to it whatsoever as far as I can tell.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:52 pm #
NIV: New International Version. On the Blue Bible site. Note two different interpretations available, around the phrases offset by a comma.
And why couldn’t everyone end up believing? Isn’t Christ convincing .. particularly in the Second Coming? (Though to be sure, other parts of the Bible might … not fit this).
As for warnings about punishments? They are saved … after fire.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:59 pm #
So why all the earlier threats? A bluff? A metaphor? A part of the typical Old Testament severity … that the NT dropped or metaphoricalized/ spiritualized?
Driving Against The Clock « Thinking Out Loud on 23 Apr 2009 at 3:00 pm #
[...] Journalhttp://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/04/the-shack-liking-it-wont-send-you-to-hell/ and http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/04/seven-more-points-about-the-shack/#comments Well known blogger C. Michael Patton at Parchment and Pen along with 63 comments and over 200 [...]
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 3:07 pm #
Dr. G,
“As for warnings about punishments? They are saved … after fire.”
Not if the warning about eternal punishment in unquencable fire is correct they aren’t!!
And I don’t believe for a minute Jesus gives idle threats or bluffs!! That would make him a liar.
Have to go do errands.
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 3:12 pm #
I think I am probably done with this discussion period. Endless theological circling becomes a drain of my time and energy at some point–think that point is here or past!
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 3:29 pm #
I don’t have my own Bible, with my notes, on hand; which I prefer to the Blue Book (thanks though).
But some quick hypothesis on how the Bible itself – especially the above – more closely read, might still be consistent with the Universalist hypothesis:
1) You might be punished briefly today, punishment ended … and yet the record of that punishment goes on forever. Indeed, there are indications that the punishment is not forever.
2) Indeed, how are the fire and/or punishment eternal … if Death and Hell (in some translations?) are ended? (If memory serves here).
3) Jesus does not bluff. Nor God either. But in the transition between the OT and the NT … some old threats, might have been subtly dropped (as they could be, many would say, in a “new covenant.”)
…. Leaving in effect an “inadvertant” impression – left in, “inadvertantly,” by the redactors and “Scribes” in whose care the Bible has been – that an old threat was still in force; whereas in fact it was not. The old punishments of “law” having been vitiated by “Grace” and forgiveness. As authorized by Paul.
Many might prefer hellfire. But here we have Christ who is as forgiving as many would hope: actually saving everyone. Though the OT God seemed not to do that.
Or so a univeralist might claim.
And therefore, finally, on a closer reading of the Biblical text, the universalist claim is rather more Biblical than one might suppose. In fact, it looks rather as if the Bible was written/translated in such a way, as to systematically allow at least two readings here. One that would 1) indeed, reassert the OT, punishing God; who will send you to Hell and everlasting fire. But then, systematically, there seems to be a fairly consistent second reading that remains open. Which would allow something like the 2) Universalist position.
Which after all, would leave us with the kind of Jesus we like to think is there: one who saves everyone, in the End.
Which is right? I won’t say here. But I would say that … it’s hard for anyone who does a close reading of the text, to reject the Univeralist hypothesis, as casually as many do.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 3:36 pm #
Sorry I avoided doing a close reading of one or more of the texts you mentioned earlier; my excuse is that in fact, to do that well … is rather fatiguing. And so I saved it until late in the argument.
But just so’s you all know: a very close, exhaustive look at the Bible itself, does not so far, rule out Univeralism.
Or in other, plainer words?
The Bible does not rule out a Jesus who saves everybody, in the end.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 3:41 pm #
What else would you expect? A Jesus that fails to save everyone?
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 3:42 pm #
A God that fails?
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 3:57 pm #
Dr. G,
There can be no theology that is founded in orthodoxy that states once an individual goes to hell they can ever get out. After the last judgment death and hell will be cast into outer darkness.
The rich man asked for a reprieve, there was none. He asked for comfort, there was none. And he asked for someone to go back and warn his brothers. Abraham said it was impossible. They had Moses to warn them and ignored him, they had David to warn them, and they ignored him as well. So if they have all these people warning, and do not take it serious then how are they going to listen to anyone else?
There is a great gulf separating the places, and Paradise was above Hell. Jesus spoke about it in warning, and never once did he say there could ever be escape from it.
That does not mean God fails, it means the person who went there failed because they were warned.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 4:01 pm #
Very well Ms. K: if you want Hell with no reprieve, let us pray it is granted to you.
cheryl u on 23 Apr 2009 at 4:22 pm #
I said I was done with what has become to me endless circular debate and that hasn’t changed.
But I must say Dr. G. that is about the downright meanest prayer and the worst thing I have ever heard someone that as far as I know claims to be a Christian has ever said to a fellow believer. Shame on you!! If you can’t discuss things with others that they oppose just as passionately as you defend them without resorting to such an outrage, there is something truly wrong.
Kara, I am sorry. That was outrageous!
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 4:54 pm #
Cheryl,
ROFL. That is par for the course for him. Don’t worry about him, he has his friends on here. That was the funniest philosophical statement from him yet, profound intellect there is so underwhelming…lol.
I take it I must have struck a chord, and when it hit, wow what a comeback!
Cheryl don’t worry about what Dr. Z says. I will be greatly alright. I know his liberal views are protruding, and he is finding it harder to cover them up, so just wait until he tells someone on here who is not as friendly as me.
Oh it might be unfriendly in his eyes. But don’t worry Cheryl, as someone said “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”
And as someone else said, “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.”
I find him amusing now, his objections are no longer based in intellectualism, but in liberalism.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 5:34 pm #
Since I have a sense of humor – C. didn’t get it – I’m now less of a person?
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 5:39 pm #
Dr G.,
Rather macabre sense of humor. Do you really feel it was an appropriate statement? Would you make that same statement toward CMP? And would you take it as humor if I said it to you? I highly doubt that.
Good thing for you that I am not too touchy, because it kind of sounds like cyberbullying…but since I don’t let your words get to me then you are not bullying me, but nice try though.
C Michael Patton on 23 Apr 2009 at 6:13 pm #
Dr. G,
You may not agree with what people believe, that is everyone’s right, but on this blog our disagreement are to be done in a way that shows gentleness and respect. Your comments are certainly not in line with such. Please read here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/08/theological-conversation-to-the-glory-shame-of-god/
In short, please don’t encourage prayer for someone to go to hell. That is over the top, immature and adds nothing to the conversation. We will not have that here at Parchment and Pen.
You are welcome to be here, just go out of your way to show respect.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 6:16 pm #
Still there’s a point in what I said (somewhat) humorously; which is (partly) why I allowed myself to say it. (Aside from a geniune sense and deep sense of exasperation at you at times; and your many, many, constant insults).
The point of this edgy joke is in part … that many feel that God, will surely be the realization of our dreams. Our “hopes.”
And so: do you really dream of – “want”; “hope” for – a God that gives people eternal damnation?
Since you probably don’t want that (above and beyond any psychological need for punishment?), note therefore that our “hopes” – to the extent that they are definitive – would suggest that … God is not as severe as you assert.
If a God that damns you to eternal Hell – or anyone (remember you are in effect insisting that he does; even liking it?) – does not really conform to your “hopes,” then after all, perhaps such a God does not exist; you have the wrong idea of God. You have not really looked deep enough into the “heart” that you (in effect?) like to cite constantly as absolute authority.
If our “hopes” are – as many say – any criterion, then God will not send many people to eternal damnation at all; but will in fact indeed, save them all, in the end.
So indeed, though I think our “heart” is often “deceived,” as the Bible says, still, now and then it is right. So: consult your hopes and dreams for a second; and then think about Universal salvation. Which would you prefer? Which do you want?
For myself – I would want a God who saves everybody. Even you; in spite of your many insults about “intellectuals” and so forth.
EricW on 23 Apr 2009 at 6:30 pm #
FWIW (yes, I dropped out, but I dropped back in for a sec), I did not take Dr. G.’s comment in in #220. as a wish/prayer that Ms. K aka Kara Kittle would herself personally be condemned to a reprieveless hell, but that she would get her wish/hope/prayer/doctrine that God indeed sends some people to a reprieveless hell.
I never detected a vengeful or hateful note in anything Dr. G. has written here, and hence it never occurred to me upon reading his comment that he was wishing that Ms. K. would personally go to hell. Rather, it struck me that he was somewhat cutely/sarcastically/wryly saying that if she believes there is or will be an eternal lake of fire in which some or many are eternally tortured according to God’s holy and righteous and Biblical will, judgment and condemnation, and if she wants God to be as she believes Him to be with respect to this, then he is praying that she get her wish so that she will be happy to find out that God and hell are as she believes them to be.
(Maybe kinda but not really like C.S. Lewis or someone who said that for those who won’t say to God, “Thy will be done,” God will say to them, “Thy will be done.” I.e., people get what they want. If they want God, they get Him. If they want themselves, they get … self, and all the horror that it means to be stuck with one’s self for eternity.)
Or so I thought.
Carry on.
Dr. G. on 23 Apr 2009 at 6:43 pm #
Thank you Eric. You caught some aspects of my own thought, that I did not articulate as well as you have.
C Michael Patton on 23 Apr 2009 at 6:51 pm #
If there was no offense meant by it, Dr. G, please forgive me.
I guess it goes to illustrate that all communication, big words and small, need clarification!!
John C.T. on 23 Apr 2009 at 10:22 pm #
Unless the joke is obvious from the language and context, it would help to use some kind of emoticon or smiley. I didn’t take it has a joke, and now that it has been explained, I still don’t find it humourous. Blogs are not the most genteel of writing, however it appears that everyone is prepared to forgive and move on. I think we all try to cut each other some slack, but I think smileys would still help.
regards,
John
John C.T. on 23 Apr 2009 at 10:25 pm #
I note, however, Dr. G. that you still have not apologized for the offence, which was taken even if none was intended. I suggest that one would be appropriate.
Kara Kittle on 23 Apr 2009 at 11:11 pm #
Dr. Z,
I forgive you. Can we be friends?
Dr. G. on 24 Apr 2009 at 8:05 am #
I apologise to Ms. K. for the perceived insult.
Will she also now apologize for all the dozens of very, very clear insults she hurled at me and intellectuals and so forth, earlier in other forumns? (As verified and noted by Eric. Z above? And as is easily traceable in past blog posts?)
To be sure, let us all be nice; and move on.
Kara Kittle on 24 Apr 2009 at 8:44 am #
Dr.G,
I don’t think of you as an intellectual any more than I think of anyone else as one.
I was thinking last night…what is a Bible scholar?
A Bible scholar is one who studies the Bible and learns from it. So does that study have to always be in a formal setting?
A person who had limited means to a proper education is still a Bible scholar if they themselves sit down and study the Bible. This is one thing we should not limit in strict view to only the high and mighty by definition and my protests were geared toward the defense of those on the fringe.
If you study the Bible, you are indeed a Bible scholar as all Christians are called to be. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with intellectualism, but if that intellectualism pushes people into categories of “not as good as me because…” then that intellectualism has only vilified one person.
We must talk rationally, we must talk reasonably. But I do not like seeing intellectuals who imply people who take a conservative approach as mindless. Which there were people who have had those insults hurled at them. If you want to keep the peace Dr. G, don’t make the implications any more how you regard those people who you believe are not as educated as you are.
We can get along but if you will keep pushing them away if you don’t learn that not everyone has the same opportunities as everyone else. We must talk sensibly and with respect. I don’t care if you dislike me, that’s your right of course. But I will be quick to defend when I see people who have very valid viewpoints but are attacked in a pseudo-veiled attempt of ad hominem. Cheryl has very valid views and you tried to tear her apart. Greg had a question asking for help and I tried to tell him he was just as alright as anyone else and was told it was inappropriate.
But Dr. G. no one in these blogs are better or worse than anyone else, no one is more or less intelligent than anyone else. God is the giver of intelligence and He very well understands that some are not able to process information in the same way, but never will I ever say any one is dumber or smarter than me. With all the arguments and debates I never called any one else stupid and never implied it. But I did not imply any one else as arrogant, that I stated explicitly.
The debates with the others ended, we all maintained our positions and kept our ground. For the future, now Dr. G, let’s be civil.
Ad hominem…
the viewpoint of A is….
because A is ….
therefore the argument of A is invalid.
Fill in the blanks.
mbaker on 24 Apr 2009 at 8:46 am #
CMP,
I have enjoyed your blog up until now.
Now, I see it being taken over by folks who:
(1) clearly want to have soapbox for their own uses rather than wanting to discuss the substance of a thread in a manner which relates to the subject, and gives everyone a chance to input.
(2) Are accusing others here of hurling insults at them, when they are the instigators.
(3) Pulling the ‘I’m more educated than you are, therefore you’re beneath me’ card.
(4) Post long winded rambling posts that have no point themselves, while making fun of some else’s stand. This has become such a distraction to me that I can hardly keep up with any of your threads.
To allow this to go much further in my opinion will be detrimental to your blog.
Respectfully,
mbaker
C Michael Patton on 24 Apr 2009 at 9:16 am #
mbaker. Thanks for you comments. I have let a couple of these threads go as of late. Been so busy . . . I will try to keep a better eye on this.
cheryl u on 24 Apr 2009 at 9:24 am #
CMP,
Thank you.
Ron on 24 Apr 2009 at 9:28 am #
Hello Michael
I read The Shack shortly after it was first published. I thought it was so good that I bought copies to give to my saved and unsaved family, friends, food servers, hairdressers etc. At one Bob Evans we even had an informal Shack discussion group. It was a way to open the door to a discussion of Christ and salvation. Many people then when out and bought books for their entire family.
After I had given out 30 or more copies I read many pro and con blogs. But the one by John Mark Hicks went into great detail on the story and then he did an analysis of the claimed theological errors. Since he wrote back in October 2008 it may be hard to locate all of his blogs but a good place to start is: http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/meeting-god-at-the-shack-v-forgiving-others-self-andgod/
Thank you Michael for your post.
Dr. G. on 24 Apr 2009 at 9:29 am #
CMP:
Thank you from me too.
Jim Leavenworth on 29 Apr 2009 at 6:36 pm #
Hey Michael,
First of all thanks for the Blog- I really enjoy it and get a lot of the articles. Most of the times I 100% agree with you but this one I have to disagree (in a friendly way!).
I found the Shack to be very dangerous and full of heresy. Some might disagree and that’s fine. I’ve had some correspondence with the author’s daughter and she answered some questions I had. If anyone wants to read our critiques of the book here’s a link to an article I wrote.
http://preachtoday.blogspot.com/2009/01/shack-revisited.html#links
By the way, did you know the author totally denies penal substitution…he actually said it in an interview (you can listen here- http://rock-life.com/files/shakcomp.mp3). THis kind of thinking also matches his book. Doesn’t Papa say things like “I’m not mad at anyone Mack” all throughout the book? I think that’s pretty telling.
Keep up the good work and let me know what you think of the critique if you get a chance.
In Christ,
Jim Leavenworth