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.
240 replies to "Seven More Points About The Shack"
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.
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
John O,
You may be right, but it sounds to me like he is speaking of the whole conversation.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.]
cheryl u:
That was JohnO, not I, who requested your link in comment #111.
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…
Sorry, EricW.
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.
Dr. G,
Regarding comment #117, could you do the same for the same reason?
Thanks.
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.
Dave Z.
Physician, heal thyself.
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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:
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
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.
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?
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.
But if there are still sins to be purged or punished here, then Christ’s atonement was not final or enough?
cheryl u wrote:
cheryl u:
What does the reader of Romans 2:5-10 make of Romans 3:21-30?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
8) 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.
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?
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.
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.
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