The Shack

[mattrose]

Apparently he's respected by you but when he makes the statement: "I have never seen a "Hollywood" movie that presented the gospel so clearly and unequivocally.", I would put him in the category of those who Paul is describing in Galatians 1:6-9.

Actually, he's a super well respected theologian and Christ-like follower of Jesus

There's no place in the Bible where we are told that all will be saved and that there are many paths (beside Jesus) to God.

Actually, there are a bunch of verses in Scripture that do make it sound like all will be saved. I don't happen to interpret those verses in the same way as Young, but we shouldn't pretend they don't exist.

And he never says there are paths to God other than Jesus. He says Jesus will travel any path to find you. Huge difference.

God is never called a female - He is always referred to as a male. He is never called "she" or "her".

Female metaphors are used... but I think the bigger question for you to answer is: Do you actually believe that God is a male?

Jesus is always shown submitting to His Father. God never submits to man, but we must always submit to Him.

Do you consider the idea of mutual submission within the inner-working of the Trinity to be heresy? Or do you just not agree that it happens?

On the second point, I"m pretty sure you just don't understand Young's use of the word submit. It seems to me rather obvious that God works within the context of (even bad) human choices all the time. That's what Young is getting at. God doesn't utilize meticulous sovereignty. It's just Young being a non-calvinist.

God will judge sin and there is an ultimate place of judgment, called the lake of fire. All individuals must receive forgiveness for their sins or they cannot be saved.

Young believes in judgment (carefully defined) and he believes in hell. He agrees that we all need to experience forgiveness for our sins and that salvation is found only in Jesus.

It seems you are reacting to a caricature moreso than to the actual author/book.

[TK]

It seems you are reacting to a caricature moreso than to the actual author/book.

Many commentators have been doing this, as well as what seems to be an almost purposeful misrepresenting of what Young actually says, primarily by lifting things out of context.

[dwight92070]

Apparently he's respected by you but when he makes the statement: "I have never seen a "Hollywood" movie that presented the gospel so clearly and unequivocally.", I would put him in the category of those who Paul is describing in Galatians 1:6-9.

Actually, he's a super well respected theologian and Christ-like follower of Jesus.

Dwight: I've never heard of him. But I don't agree with every person who I do respect and consider to be Christ-like, except on essentials. Obviously, there has been, and now with the movie coming out, still is much controversy about "The Shack". For this man to say that he has never seen a Hollywood movie that presented the gospel so clearly and unequivocally, makes me have little or no respect for him, since so many godly men that I do respect have identified it as heresy.

There's no place in the Bible where we are told that all will be saved and that there are many paths (beside Jesus) to God.

Actually, there are a bunch of verses in Scripture that do make it sound like all will be saved. I don't happen to interpret those verses in the same way as Young, but we shouldn't pretend they don't exist.

Dwight: I never said that there are no verses that may sound like that. So I am not pretending that they don't exist. But you should not pretend that there are not many verses that clearly tell us that not all men will be saved. Matthew 13 and 24 and 25 come immediately to mind.

And he never says there are paths to God other than Jesus. He says Jesus will travel any path to find you. Huge difference.

Dwight: If I am not mistaken, in the context of what you are referring to, many other religions are mentioned by name. If religions are "man reaching out for God", then I don't see a huge difference at all. The strong implication is that all religions lead to God.

God is never called a female - He is always referred to as a male. He is never called "she" or "her".

Female metaphors are used... but I think the bigger question for you to answer is: Do you actually believe that God is a male?

Dwight: Yes, that is how called has chosen to reveal Himself throughout scripture. Notice I did not say God is human, but He is male. The trinity is the FATHER, the SON, and the Holy Spirit. Obviously, Jesus was, and I believe still is, a male. After His resurrection, He was still a male. HE is risen!

Jesus is always shown submitting to His Father. God never submits to man, but we must always submit to Him.

Do you consider the idea of mutual submission within the inner-working of the Trinity to be heresy? Or do you just not agree that it happens?

Dwight: I don't know. We do know that the Son always submitted Himself to the Father. I don't know of any place where the reverse was true.

God will judge sin and there is an ultimate place of judgment, called the lake of fire. All individuals must receive forgiveness for their sins or they cannot be saved.

Young believes in judgment (carefully defined) and he believes in hell. He agrees that we all need to experience forgiveness for our sins and that salvation is found only in Jesus.

Dwight: From my reading of "The Shack", none of those things are evident, although I admit it has been several years since I read it.

It seems you are reacting to a caricature moreso than to the actual author/book.

Dwight: I can only react to the thoughts of the author and the thoughts of godly men who I do respect (who believe it is heresy).

[dwight92070]

If part of a story is twisting scripture, you discount all of it.

This would depend on what is meant by "twisting scripture." The term generally speaks of a deliberate and deceitful attempt to misrepresent the teachings of scripture by pretending that passages say certain things that they are not actually saying. If a teacher is caught doing this, I would agree that nothing he says can safely be trusted.

I don't know if the author of the Shack is doing this. He is, no doubt, honestly representing what he thinks the Bible teaches, though it might not agree, on certain points, with what others (including myself) would think the Bible is teaching.

Dwight: It appears to me that there can be another form of twisting scripture. That is, taking "norms" established or created or even identified by God and perverting them or twisting them to be something else than what He says they are. Marriage, for example, is one man and one woman, but man has twisted that to mean two men or two women. The idea that God said "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." Man has perverted that, at least in America, and we are looked down on if we have many children. Even God's own identity or Person, if you will, is identified in the Bible to be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is identified as a male, not a human male, but a male nonetheless. Once again, man has even perverted that and some call Him "She" or "Her". William Young has perverted that or twisted it by portraying the Father and the Holy Spirit as women. I assume Young doesn't literally believe that the Father or the Spirit are female but that is irrelevant. To portray them as such is crossing a line, IMO.

I don't feel a need to agree with every conclusion of any author before becoming willing to hear what he has to say.

Dwight: Neither do I, but now that I feel quite confident that William Young is presenting heretical doctrines, I don't see a need to continue to read or watch anything else that he has come up with, unless I am proven to be wrong about him, which I am open to.

I don't believe everything that C.S. Lewis believed, but I do not accuse him of twisting scripture—and I do not write-off as unreliable everything he wrote.

Dwight: I agree with that 100% because I know C.S. Lewis has a foundation of the truth of scripture.

There is such a thing as proving all things, and holding fast to that which is good (1 Thess.5:21).

Dwight: That's exactly what I believe I am doing.

[mattrose]

I don't see a need to continue to read or watch anything else that he has come up with, unless I am proven to be wrong about him, which I am open to.

If you're interested, you can read my chapter by chapter summaries of his new book. Since it is non-fiction, it is more obvious what he believes. The summaries are very short. My personal reactions follow. I found 12 specific things agreeable, 3 things we should be cautious about, and 2 things that I just think he was seriously wrong about.

http://matthew94.blogspot.com/2017/03/l ... t-god.html

[Si]

I honestly had not heard of this book or movie until recently. Personally, I think I owe it to Mr. Young to let him define what message he intends to convey with his creative work. If he says his work means A, and the critics say he means B, he is misrepresented. The problem with movies or books like this is, a frenzy gets whipped up, and countless people pass on condemnation based on what a critic says, and then read the book or watch the movie through that filter, without even letting the creator speak for himself. That is neither fair nor accurate.

[steve]

I know C.S. Lewis has a foundation of the truth of scripture.

Yet, some evangelicals have accused C.S. Lewis of being a universalist (he was not). He did believe, however, that some people may be saved by Christ who had never heard of Jesus in their lifetimes. He was pretty clear on this belief—more so than Young is clear on being a universalist.

Some criticize Lewis for using pagan creatures (pans, centaurs, etc.) as characters, and also references to "deep magic" to get across Christian truths in The Chronicles of Narnia. He is generally given a pass on this by most of his readers, however.This poetic license might as reasonably be applied to depicting God as a black woman.

Since you read The Shack, you know that Young specifically has "Papa" explain that God is neither male nor female. He is appearing (in the early part of the book) in a female image, for a specific purpose, but later appears in a male character. Young's poetic license is predictably controversial. However, I am not aware of any doctrine taught in his book that qualifies as "heretical" by any standards accepted in the early church.

[mattrose]

Steve... in Young's latest book, he suggests not so much that all people WILL be saved (in the future). He believes that all people ARE saved (presently). For Young, we simply have to come to realize that Jesus has already saved us. He believes some won't 'experience' their salvation until after spending some time with the fiery love of God in hell.

Have you run into this belief (that all people are already saved) before?

[steve]

I am not sure if I have. It has occurred to me, over the years, that someone might possibly take 2 Corinthians 5:19 to mean something like that—though I don't recall if I have encountered anyone doing so.

[dwight92070]

So Papa says that God is neither male nor female. I had forgotten that, but is "her" statement true? Throughout the Bible, God is referred to as "HE", "HIM", "FATHER", "SON". HE appeared to Abraham as a MAN with 2 angels, who also appeared as MEN. Jesus came to earth as a baby BOY, and grew up to be a MAN. HE was raised from the dead and still appeared as a MAN. HE ascended into heaven as a MAN with holes in HIS hands, HIS feet, and HIS side, and apparently still looks like that. HE will return one day, apparently still as a MAN, in HIS appearance. Yet we know that HE is God.

So will Jesus be the only person in the godhead who is male? Isn't the FATHER male too? Not human, but nonetheless, male. And the Holy Spirit is also called "HE". The person sitting on the throne in Revelation 5 is called "HIM".

If God is neither male or female, then shouldn't HE be referred to with some other designation, like just simply "God"?

The fact that C.S. Lewis uses 'deep magic" in his stories, IMO, does not rise to the seriousness of twisting or perverting the identity of the person of God.