"The Shack"?

[Guest]

Her is a book review that is fair and insightfull.


http://www.challies.com/archives/book-r ... -young.php

[Guest]

Hi Jeremiah,

Thanks for the page refs in The Shack. I'll try to read those in their entirety again soon and see if I draw the same conclusion you do.

In the meantime, I wanted to pose a few questions to you on some of your challenges.

Regarding heirarchical submission in the Godhead, could you perhaps give a scriptural case as to why you think the Trinity has something other than a "circular relationship" as the author described? If there some sort of a heirarchy of authority in the Godhead, it's not immediately apparent to me. It almost suggest 3 separate Gods to me if there is such a relationship.

As far as submission to man goes, this would be a Calvinist/Arminian thing as far as I can tell. He's talking about free-will here if I'm not mistaken. I know you are a Calvinist if I remember correctly, so you may have more of a problem with this than I do. I agree that this is a very non-Calvinist book.

Regarding God forsaking Jesus, maybe I can trouble you for a scriptural case for that as well. I think the counter-argument that the author most likely holds has to do with God being "in Christ" reconciling the world to Him (somewhere in 2Cor 5 I believe).

Regarding the judgment of sin and Christ "bearing our sins". I know there is a camp that holds that the atonement was more curative in nature than it was a subsitutionary judgment of sin. This may be the view that the author holds. I personally think that is not a complete picture of the atonement, but it doesn't alarm me as a "dangerous" thing as you put it.

Sin is not portrayed positively in the book at all as far as I can tell. So it's not like he's espousing anti-nomianism. I've heard the author state in an interview that he believes in the reality of Hell, but he also made comments that might suggest that he believes in Ultimate Reconciliation as well.

Anyway, that's all I have time for now. Breaks' over.

Hopefully I'll have some more time a little later to explore some of these things a little more with you.

[Guest]

Jeremiah wrote:

pg 120 God the Father saying " I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is it's own punishment, devouring you from the inside."

our friend Todd on this forum would have something to say about this; however I believe Todd would say that being devoured from the inside IS the punishment. maybe he will see this and comment.

TK

[Guest]

BTW, I read the review you posted.

The problem I have with this type of review is that he simply countered Youngs' "unbiblical" theology with presumptive phrases like "but the bible says..".

I don't think he even used one scripture reference to make his case. Even one of his supporters who loved his review made a comment to that effect.

What's up with that?

[Guest]

Christopher, sorry it has been a couple of days.

Anywho, regarding that book review, I think that the objections are valed even without citing particular bible verses, but it would have been better if he did. Did any of the reviews critiques strike you as unbiblical?

Regarding the trinity, I do think that scripture speaks to various functions or roles within the godhead. The Father sends the Son-john6:39, 20:21, the Spirit is sent- john16:7, Jesus did only what the Father told Him to do- Lk 2:49,Jhn5:19, 6:38, the Spirit doesn"t speak on His own authority, and glorifies Christ not Himself-John16:13,14 Jesus came to do theFather's will. It seems from scripture that the Spirit and the Son champion the Father's will. Also the Father gives believers to Christ John 17:6,9,11 John6:37,39
Does that help or clarify?

The submission thing. Yes I do lean towards the doctrines of grace, reformed or calvinistic theology, in as much as I believe the scripture does. However I was not aware that Arminian's held that God submits Himself to man. In the Bible men bow before God, not the other way around. Yes, The greatest is a servant, but God is our Lord, and submission is related but different than service. Yes the book is non-calvinist, but that is not my issue with it.

Regarding the Father forsaking Christ, I take Jesus to mean what He said. He was truly forsaken. Since God is of purer eyes than to behold evil, sin seperates people from God,He had to turn His face, the blessed presence,away so that He could turn His face towards us.

Concernig the judgement of sin and Christ, a incomplete or misleading picture of the atonement is dangerous. Christ died to give us an example, to save us from the wrath of God and free us from the power of sin.

Yes, sin is not portrayed positivelyin the book, but that doesn't rule out antinomianism. The author clearly says-" Are you telling me that responsibility and expectation are just another form of rules we are no longer under? did I hear you right?"
" Yup," Papa interjected again.-pg. 203

Hope this helps the dialouge.
Grace and peace, Jeremiah

[Guest]

Jeremiah,

You wrote:

Regarding the Father forsaking Christ, I take Jesus to mean what He said. He was truly forsaken. Since God is of purer eyes than to behold evil, sin seperates people from God,He had to turn His face, the blessed presence,away so that He could turn His face towards us.

I know I'm getting off the subject of the thread, but if I understand you here you believe Jesus literally went to the cross marred by our sins.

Yet scripture says of the Lamb of God:

Hebrews 9:14

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

1 Peter 1:19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:


We know that all the animals sacrificed under the law had to be without blemish, otherwise they were unacceptable. How do you reconcile your view with this, or do I misunderstand your view?

[Guest]

Homer!
I think it is just a misunderstanding, allow me to clarify. Our sins were laid on Christ. God made Christ who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Jeremiah

[Guest]

Jeremiah,

I think it is just a misunderstanding, allow me to clarify. Our sins were laid on Christ. God made Christ who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

I still do not understand what you mean. What exactly does it mean to you to say "our sins were laid on Christ"? Sins are not things. How could Jesus "be sin" and yet be spotless, without blemish?

I take these statements as figures of speech, specifically metonyms, where the cause, sin, is is used for the effect, death. Do you understand it differently?

Scripture contains a great number of tropes; they are very common. Examples of metonyms would be "Moses is read every sabbath day...." (the author put for his writings) and "by the mouth of two or three witnesses...", i.e. their testimony.

[Guest]

Hi Jeremiah,

No worries about how long it takes to respond. There’s really no hurry here and I know you have young kids (as I do) that are much more important than any on-line forum, so believe me…I totally understand. So we make time when we can. And I apologize for the lengthy response, but I didn’t want to leave anything out.

Wow, so we have the Trinity, Calvinism/Arminianism, Final Judgment and the Atonement all wrapped up in this one thread. This could take years!

Actually, I’m hoping we don’t delve too deeply into any of these topics as they have been thoroughly debated elsewhere on this forum (and countless other places). But what I’d like to talk about is anything in the book that is counter-biblical (clearly and unequivocally contrary to scripture).

I’d like to point out that one of the main thrusts of the book is to encourage the reader to live relationally, not religiously, with God. Its aim seems to be to challenge many of our traditional presuppositions that hinder that intimacy with God and with each other.

I’d also like to point out that I don’t agree the authors on all points either. And I don’t expect to when I read any book, fiction or non-fiction. I look for an overall “take away” that I can benefit from spiritually.

You wrote:

Anywho, regarding that book review, I think that the objections are valed even without citing particular bible verses, but it would have been better if he did. Did any of the reviews critiques strike you as unbiblical?

Nothing struck me as “unbiblical” about the review per se, just very biased regarding traditional presuppositions. I don’t see any of the assertions he put forward as unquestionable, so I would expect someone who makes these absolute sounding claims to back it up with their biblical arguments.

Regarding the trinity, I do think that scripture speaks to various functions or roles within the godhead. The Father sends the Son-john6:39, 20:21, the Spirit is sent- john16:7, Jesus did only what the Father told Him to do- Lk 2:49,Jhn5:19, 6:38, the Spirit doesn"t speak on His own authority, and glorifies Christ not Himself-John16:13,14 Jesus came to do theFather's will. It seems from scripture that the Spirit and the Son champion the Father's will. Also the Father gives believers to Christ John 17:6,9,11 John6:37,39
Does that help or clarify?

Thank you for doing the homework on this. These verses do indeed tend to favor what you are suggesting, and if they were the only verses to consider, I might agree with you. However Jesus also said things like:

Matt 28:18
All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
NKJV

…also

Matt 26:53
53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
NKJV

This would have been against the Father’s will as Jesus just finished demonstrating by praying “not my will, but thine be done” (meaning the “cup” of the cross). But Jesus seemed confident that He could do it nonetheless and the Father would submit to that request.

Paul also seemed to indicate the absolute authority of Christ (Col 1).

So I think there is a sense in the Godhead of mutual submission and mysterious “oneness” of mind about the Trinity that makes hierarchical authority not only absurd, but impossible IMO. One thing we must concede no matter what our view is on that, is that we are not likely to be able to understand it. So it seems rather risky to wax eloquent about it.

The submission thing. Yes I do lean towards the doctrines of grace, reformed or calvinistic theology, in as much as I believe the scripture does. However I was not aware that Arminian's held that God submits Himself to man. In the Bible men bow before God, not the other way around. Yes, The greatest is a servant, but God is our Lord, and submission is related but different than service. Yes the book is non-calvinist, but that is not my issue with it.

The non-Calvinist would say that even though God is able to force all decisions of men, He doesn’t do so because He has given us some degree of free will to make our own choices. It’s one of the main complaints of Calvinists because it is thought that it makes man the sovereign and not God (which seems a strange conclusion to me). But I think it’s in this sense that the author is saying that God is submitted to man. Sometimes He "gives them over" to their "debased mind" (Rom 1). God allows men to make choices contrary to His will. That is why the author (in the same conversation) has Jesus saying:

“I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me” p.146


you wrote:

Regarding the Father forsaking Christ, I take Jesus to mean what He said. He was truly forsaken. Since God is of purer eyes than to behold evil, sin seperates people from God,He had to turn His face, the blessed presence,away so that He could turn His face towards us.

Concernig the judgement of sin and Christ, a incomplete or misleading picture of the atonement is dangerous. Christ died to give us an example, to save us from the wrath of God and free us from the power of sin.

And you are definitely entitled to hold that opinion (and in good company too I might add). The atonement is another one of those complex issues that is very difficult to understand, especially the subsitutionary part. I’ve not yet heard an explanation of it that completely satisfies all my questions. I think there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 different views on the atonement. Therefore, I try not to be too dogmatic about it. I like to give a little grace in this area as people wrestle through all the implications.

Like I said before, there is another camp that has a different view about Christ’s work on the cross. IMO, The bible is not clear about God “turning His face” from Jesus because He was wearing all this sin that He is too holy to look upon. That is a very popular way of looking at it, but where do we get that idea from the bible??? In poetic prophetic passages like Habakkuk? Of course God looks upon sin, How else would He judge it?

I think the point is that committing sin is how we separate ourselves from God (remember Adam and Eve hiding themselves from God?). I think the author holds the view that at the cross, God absorbs the offense and exhausts its power to separate us any longer. Guilt and shame are no longer a factor becuase of what Jesus did. Like I said before though, I think that’s only part of the picture. I still hold that there is some substitutionary element in there somewhere. But I won’t hold that against the author because it’s not altogether clear in scripture IMO.

Yes, sin is not portrayed positivelyin the book, but that doesn't rule out antinomianism. The author clearly says-" Are you telling me that responsibility and expectation are just another form of rules we are no longer under? did I hear you right?"
" Yup," Papa interjected again.-pg. 203

Yes, also on page 203, the author has God saying:

“all things are lawful”.

But remember, Paul also wrote:
1 Cor 6:12
12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
NKJV

When you look at the statements you quoted in light of the entire conversation, it’s hard for me to see why you end up with the conclusion you do. In my mind, the author is merely pointing out a very central Protestant tenet…that is Sola Fide. Justification by faith alone that allows the freedom to live relationally in God rather than religiously according to works. The purpose of this conversation was to strip the protagonist (Mack) of his compartmentalized view of walking with God. Jesus said at the end of this conversation:

“I want to be at the center of everything. When I live in you, then together we can live through everything that happens to you. Rather than a pyramid, I want to be the center of a mobile, where everything in your life–your friends, family, occupation, thoughts, activities—is connected to me but moves with the wind, in and out and back and forth, in an incredible dance of being”
“And I,” concluded Sarayu, “I am the wind”. She smiled hugely and bowed.

I can’t find anything disagreeable about that concluding statement of Jesus. I love the analogy of a dance because it points out how beautifully synchronized life in Christ can be when we let Him lead the “dance” and how utterly clumsy, counter-productive, frustrating, and even devastating it is when we want to take the lead.

I think the author is correct about religious responsibilities and expectations leading to Pharisaical attitudes toward others. Manipulation, control, and self-righteous judgmental attitudes are the result…but not relationship. That’s what he’s getting at I think.

In an earlier post you wrote:

pg162,163 how everyone is God's child and how God loves and doesn't judge His children, whether or not anyone deserves to go to hell (I believe we all do) isn't brought into the discussion.

I actually loved this part of the book, because it wasn’t about God judging people, it was about people judging people. I won’t say much more for the sake of those who haven’t read the book. I just thought the author illustrated that point beautifully and brought the main character to a point of humility towards passing judgment on others, even murderous people. The author pointed out that God sees all the things we don’t (omniscience).


Anyway, I see no need to shelter people from this book for a couple of reasons:

1. IF someone is getting all their theology from this book, there is a bigger problem with their thinking. All things must be balanced by scripture and judged in the light of God’s revealed word.

2. Part of teaching someone discernment skills, is allowing them to have exposure to error. If this book is dangerously in error, would that not be a great tool for teaching those kinds of discernment skills to young believers and demonstrating to them that there are many cunning and deceptive teachings out there to be aware of? I don’t think that it is, but even if it were, I still would encourage people to read it and practice exposing those fallacies.

3. The things presented in this book are no different than many of the ideas expressed on this forum. There is value in hashing it all out.

Thanks again for raising those points and giving me an opportunity to think about the book again. I appreciate your thoughts

Lord bless.

[Guest]

Jeremiah,

I think it is just a misunderstanding, allow me to clarify. Our sins were laid on Christ. God made Christ who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

I still do not understand what you mean. What exactly does it mean to you to say "our sins were laid on Christ"? Sins are not things. How could Jesus "be sin" and yet be spotless, without blemish?

I take these statements as figures of speech, specifically metonyms, where the cause, sin, is is used for the effect, death. Do you understand it differently?

Scripture contains a great number of tropes; they are very common. Examples of metonyms would be "Moses is read every sabbath day...." (the author put for his writings) and "by the mouth of two or three witnesses...", i.e. their testimony.

Homer, I believe that God imputed our sin to Christ, that God assigned the responsability of our sin to Christ so that God could be just in punishing that sin. Isa. 53:6,11 , 2Cor.5:21, 1Peter 2:24

does that help?