Page 1 of 6
The Shack
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:50 pm
by dwight92070
Re: The Shack
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 pm
by dwight92070
Albert Mohler sheds even more light on this book/movie:
The Shack - The Missing Art of Evangelical Discernment
Re: The Shack
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:16 pm
by psimmond
I haven't seen it but I read the book and thought it was ok. I've heard the movie is true to the book. Here's a positive review from a respected Bible scholar/teacher/author:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolso ... god-shack/
Re: The Shack
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:14 pm
by 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. 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. God is never called a female - He is always referred to as a male. He is never called "she" or "her". Jesus is always shown submitting to His Father. God never submits to man, but we must always submit to Him. 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.
Re: The Shack
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:54 am
by TK
Dwight- have you read the book or seen the movie?
A lot of the objections have been discussed on this forum quite some time ago when the book came out. If you do a search of "the shack" you can find it.
The reason why God reveals Himself as female is explained in the book and the movie.
The universalism you mention is definitely not a main point of the book or movie and is never explicitly stated as such. I am not saying the author is not a proponent of UR- it is fairly certain he is-- but that is not a main theme of the book or movie nor is it either a minor theme.
Re: The Shack
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:50 am
by dwight92070
TK wrote:Dwight- have you read the book or seen the movie?
Dwight: I read the book back when it came out. As Al Mohler said, it's a story with the obvious purpose of presenting doctrine. I will not see the movie, which would be supporting more heresy.
A lot of the objections have been discussed on this forum quite some time ago when the book came out. If you do a search of "the shack" you can find it.
The reason why God reveals Himself as female is explained in the book and the movie.
Dwight: Apparently, the authors of scripture found no need to present God as a "she" or "her". We know the Bible does say that He has some characteristics that might be feminine in our understanding, but He is never portrayed as a female, so to do that is twisting our understanding of Him.
The universalism you mention is definitely not a main point of the book or movie and is never explicitly stated as such.
Dwight: Papa says she has many roads to get to you - Buddhism, Islam, etc. Sounds pretty explicit to me.
I am not saying the author is not a proponent of UR- it is fairly certain he is-- but that is not a main theme of the book or movie nor is it either a minor theme.
Dwight: You don't need to eat the whole apple to realize that's it's rotten. Even the main theme, i.e. the love of God, is not presented in a Biblical way, which would include the judgment of God against sin. If part of a story is twisting scripture, you discount all of it.
Re: The Shack
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:24 am
by PR
William Paul Young's latest book, "Lies We Believe About God," articulates his beliefs more fully. It's really getting hammered in the reviews.
https://www.amazon.com/Lies-We-Believe- ... 017I25DUY/
Phil
Re: The Shack
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:30 am
by steve
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.
I don't feel a need to agree with every conclusion of any author before becoming willing to hear what he has to say. 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.
There is such a thing as proving all things, and holding fast to that which is good (1 Thess.5:21).
Re: The Shack
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:11 am
by TK
I got zero theology from The Shack, nor would I go to this book or movie for theology.
What influenced me, and I suspect this was the author's main purpose in writing the book, is that God desires a much deeper relationship with me than I currently allow (for whatever reasons) and that the fault for this is 100% mine and 0% God's. It encouraged me to pursue a more intimate relationship with God, and that fact alone made the book worthwhile to me.
Re: The Shack
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:24 pm
by mattrose