ESTE LIBRO ES ESTUPENDO, OJALA Y LO PUEDAN HACER PELICULA ESO SERIA GENIAL.
TODAS LAS CRITICAS SON CAUSADAS POR LA FALTA DE MADURES ESPIRITUAL , Y LA OBECIDAD RELIGIOSA DE CADA PERSONA. PARA EMPESAR EL LIBRO ES UN LIBRO DE FICCION Y NO DE TEORIA. PERO SACUDE TUS CREENCIAS RELIGIOSAS
But is that what the bible teaches? No! Jesus said I am from above, you are from below. And yes God says in Colossians that he made all things and holds them together, and is everywhere, though he makes it clear that he is eternal, outside of time and is not part of the creation with is finite and perishing. People need to ask themselves why is there a popular teaching like Leonard Sweet's book Quantum Spirituality w. thanks to David Spangler and Mathew Fox, you know, the new agers... same idea
I am trying to locate my copy, but there is this really strange thing that Paul has the "Trinity's version of papa," I believe, and she/he/it says that she is the or makes up the ground of all being? Really? So that would mean that we drag God from Above, down to our level here and that creation & God are one in the same. Therefore, you read this book, & you are endorsing that we are all one, and all god by the slick writing of this panthiestic and panenthiestic wordlview in Christian garb.
You all should read A "Wonderful" Deception by Warren Smith as well as Larry's DeBraun's Unshackled: Breaking Away from Seductive Spirituality.
Christians who rave over this book ought to begin asking themselves deeper questions like why does the word creation get capitalized when it means to deify something? Why does Mac & "The Trinity's version of the Holy Spirit" discuss 'fractals, which are used as a tool by New Agers in quantum physics to say we are one with all including God
I have no problem with Christians voicing their opinions. I am myself. As such I see it as my right to contradict what I see as incongruous with Christianity.
If you say she's radical, I believe you. But so far she's been cordial with me, so... :P
regelemihai, unfortunately, this person ele12957returns follows me from video to video falsely accusing me and has done so for 10 months. Please do not take heed of his statements, they are untrue. PBTarget is not my husband but a Christian brother in America (I'm in Australia) and I do not have 'dozens of aliases'. Please do not be beguiled my enemy.
If you look at my channel you can make up your own mind about my beliefs. I have enjoyed our discussion and hope we can continue peaceably.
I harbor no ill will towards you Utopiang. Our differences should remain just that. I never let disagreements with other fellow Christians turn into hatered.
This book is a Hellish human attempt at downgrade of the incombrehensibly Holy and Exalted God into a septic soup of human attributes grounded in secular humanism. Turn you back on this blasphemy.
8 For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways, says the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
Paul Young- my way of interpretation is orthodox because I say so, not the matyrs, my Jesus is unfettered not the Bible, God has no sex so He is a african woman.
God is not an African woman in the book. He just assumes that form at a certain point. Later in the book he assumes the form of an elderly man. It's just a literary device.
utopiang please keep up the good work even though you are outnumbered by so much ignorance and hatred you are not overpowered. They hate you because you love God and have invested time to study his word.The awful thing is that no christians coming to ur aid. meanwhile our message has to be salted in grace so that we may win who we can. Hell is real and i wouldnt want these guys in there. My heart cries in prayer for you. Well done
Dear chaz10bug, thank you for your kindness and love. Your courage in speaking out for Christ and your wise words are a great comfort to me and to our brothers and sisters who are also outnumbered. It is a true saying that believers are known by their love for one another (John 13:35). This Christ-like love is revealed in your faithful stand for what is true and your conviction to declare the glory of the Lord beside your Brethren.
God bless you and keep you in our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
I still don't understand, why believers don't keep their religion to themselves? Every time, there is some Christian that starts quoting Bible like a wild man, yet he doesn't understand that that is the most stupid thing.
Every word written by eIe12957 is proven to be entirely false with a quick browse through to my channel Favourites. He is a Word of Faith minister who preaches a false gospel which denies the consequences of sin and the rejection of Christ (as does Paul Young).
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." (1 Thessalonians 5:3)
They do not understand the biblical def of love. Utopiang doesn't believe Love is just or that Love has fullfilled the law. She doesn't understand that love won't murder, bear false witness etc. she thinks it is the threat of punishment from God that will keep people doing right, this is why the Pharisee's never understood what Jesus was saying or doing. Utopiang like Pharisee's in Jesus day use fear & threats to try & get people to do right. Jesus used love and it is love that changes a heart.
I have had numerosu discussions with Utopiang and she really doesn't understand love from a biblical perspective Luke 6 pretty much undermines her whole theological foundation on who God is. Jesus said God is kind to the wicked and the evil Utopiang disagrees with Christ she believes the opposite of what Jesus taught about his father. thus why she hates this book so much, Calvinist believe that God only loves some and hates the rests even though the life of Christ teaches the direct opposite.
No, God certainly is NOT a God of man's rules. However, God's laws are sacred. The Word teaches us that God is a God of love but He is also a God of wrath, justice and judgment who will cast those who reject Christ into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).
If we teach only one part of the counsel of God then we deny His full character. If we deny His full character as revealed to us BY God, then we create a false god.
The WHOLE counsel of God must be declared for the truth to be made known.
"For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." (Acts 20:27)
"Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:" (Jeremiah 26:2)
We teach people the truth about God according to HIS commands. If we deny people this truth and the eternal consequences of rejecting Christ then the lost will remain lost.
herongrove, firstly, Young openly denies the penal substitutionary atonement. Secondly, those who reject Christ remain condemned. If a man dies unrepentant, he will be judged and condemned eternally.
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18)
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15)
Both quotes(again) are not what Jesus is saying but what the author is saying. Maybe I'm wrong myself, but can you point me anywhere in the four Gospels where Jesus is saying that if you don't believe in him you will burn eternally?
@regelemihai, the Scriptures teach that anyone whose name is not written in the Lamb's book of life will be eternally damned (Revelation 20:10).
"But nothing unclean will ever enter it [holy city of Jerusalem come down from Heaven], nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lambs book of life." (Revelation 21:27 ESV)
"And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15 NASB)
Again Utopiang, those are not the musings of Jesus. Not only it's from the book of revelations and not from the Gopels, but it's not even Jesus' spoken word--it's John of Patmos's.
@regelemihai, I have shown you from God's Word that John was dictating what he heard from Christ. Therefore, the book of Revelation was written by Christ Himself, not by John.
He claims he heard it from Christ. It's not a historical account of Jesus' actual sayings like in the 4 Gospels. Anyone can claim he has received a message from God. As I said, many do that including Muhammad, but I don't think you'd consider Muhammad God's messanger simply because he said so.
Also, it's John of Patmos, not John the apostle. So there's no real correlation between Jesus and him.
Why would you deny John's identity? You were born in the 70;s, you were not an eye witness and yet you lack faith that God can keep the integrity of the original manuscripts, that were compared to the dead sea scrolls, are word for word perfect by scribes who were fastidious in their work. Why is that you don't have faith and the bible says whatever is not born of faith is sin? Don't you think that puts you and other liberals in a dangerous spot?
Not at all. While I don't deny scripture is divinly inspired, I do concede that it was written by fallible men. Only God is perfect and while the holy spirit is preserved in scripture, it is still written by fallible men.
Now, the point of roginal sin isn't even relevant to this objection because, as I've said, it's not even Biblica to begin with. It's an addendum given by early church fathers.Adams fall(Romans 5:12)simply shows us that he separated himself from God and that he(as well as we...
....do need faith in order to redeem ourselves. But nowhere does this concept appear that babies and humans are born servile and tainted because of Adam's sin. Adam intoroduced sin into the world and we have the ability and we all sin. That's why we need atonment.
It's also fair to point out that such a doctrine doesn't even appear in the OT where Adam is talked about the most.
So, you don't beleive that the Holy Spirit wrote through the hand of hand? You don't
even mention that it was Jesus who told John to write everything you see down and give it to the churches. What are you doing by trying to strip God, the Word, from his word. Go read a catechism please. And read 1 and 2 Timothy again, especially where it says that men were inspired by the HS to write the bible. Chapter 3, of 1 Tim I believe, could be 2nd Tim though. You are not lined up w/ scripture...
Oh, and where exactly did you get the idea in the book that Young rejects the substitutionary atonment? I can scarcely think o any instance where he even suggests it.
@regelemihai, before I answer your other questions, may I ask you what you believe about the penal substitutionary atonement? In other words, what do you believe took place on the cross between the Father and the Son?
@regelemihai, yes, that is the simplified version but my question is, how exactly did Jesus pay for our sins? What did the Father and Son do on the cross to make it possible for men to be justified?
@regelemihai, I am asking you these questions because there are very serious issues with what Paul Young believes took place on the cross. He denies the Scriptural truth, believing instead that man alone caused Christ to suffer on the cross, not God the Father. He has publically stated that a God who punishes His own Son is not a god he can trust and he openly mocks the Word of God from the pulpit (he is an ordained minister) regarding the great exchange/penal substitutionary atonement. (1)
Scripture teaches that God the Father supernaturally placed/imputed the sins of men onto His beloved Son's body (Isaiah 53:4-9). The Father then turned from the Son, rejecting Him in our place (Psalm 22:1, Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34). Finally, the Father poured out the full cup of wrath allotted to fallen men upon His Son (Is 53:4-10, Luke 22:42, Matt 20:22, 26:39). Christ was the substitute. When a man is supernaturally regenerated/made alive in Christ, Jesus' perfection is placed upon him. (2)
In "The Shack", Paul Young makes it clear that he believes that the Father not only had nothing to do with Jesus' death but that He was actually IN Christ which is a heresy known as "Patripassionism" ("Father suffered"). God the SON (fully man/fully God) was on the cross, the Father was in Heaven pouring out His wrath upon Him. Jesus was the spotless sacrificial lamb whom God demanded be sacrificed to atone for sin. Christ was slain by the Father's own decree, fulfilling His divine will. (3)
The account of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22) is a shadow of what occured between the Father and the Son to save men from sin and death. It is essential to our faith that we know who God is and what He did for us. If we have incorrect ideas about Him we commit the sin of idolatry by worshipping a different god. Young's entire book is filled with these same kinds of very serious errors and heresies. I warn people because I love God and His beloved sheep for whom He paid the ultimate price. (4)
To hear William Paul Young deny the penal substitutionary atonement and also mock it during one of his sermons from the pulpit, you are welcome to visit the following sites:
(1) w w w(.)morebooksandthings(.)blogspot(.)com/2009/03/interview-with-william-young(.)html
(2) w w w(.)fightingforthefaith(.)com/2009/08/review-of-a-sermon-delivered-by-paul-young-author-of-the-shack(.)html
Remove the brackets when pasting the addresses into your search engine.
Again, how is God in this book different in what concerns the MAIN tenets of Christianity? Discrapencies, while being important, overshadow the bigger picture. God in the book is merciful, forgiving, wise, all powerful, loving. These are words actually uttered by Jesus, unlike the main doctrinal facets that were not. Then how can you rebel against this book with such fervor? Sure, sometimes it lacks depth, but you're ignoring the rest.
There are many false gods in the world that are loving and forgiving but they are still false gods. Idolatry is a vile sin in God's eyes and those who come to faith via Young's book are in grave danger of becoming false converts. Those who are already false converts will simply fall into greater error. It is a very serious matter indeed.
I am exposing the error in Young's book because it is deceptive and causes men to walk in error and on the wide road to Hell.
There's aren't many gods who are comprable in matters of forgivness and love as Jesus was, so I kinda' disagree. Second, those are the central tenets of Jesus' preaching. You can't dust them off and point to some other minor errors as if those are more important. That's a little extreme.
Homosexuals believe in a loving god who allows them to continue in their sins unrepentantly. Them there is the Mormon god and the Jehovah's witness god.
The central tenets of Christ's teachings can also be changed into a false gospel. He warned of Hell frequently and of the wrath to come. He taught that it was HE who would be seated upon the great white throne casting unbelievers into the lake of fire. God is primarily HOLY and His wrath and justice are not unloving or unrighteous.
There's not much doubting the Mormon god is incongruous with monotheism. You can't compare that to Jesus in The Shake. Mormons believe that God is a created begin precended by an infinte regress of gods continuously creating one another. That IS heretical. Presenting Jesus as loving is not. It's scriptural.
Yes, he will judge those who deserve Hell. Taking the lake of fire literally is a little off, but lets assume for the sake of argument its basis. Young never says that judgment won't come..
...he even says that he man who killed Meckenzies daughter will be unished. All he's saying is that we shouldn't be preoccupied with it because it's not our place to judge("Judge not lest ye not be juedged").
Pointing fingers are sinners and homosexuals is not what Jesus' would've done. Sinners will be judged in the afterlife, but it's not our place to judge. That comes straight from His mouth.
@regelemihai, I am not pointing fingers at homosexuals or sinners, I am showing you the error that comes of believing in a loving false god made in man's own image.
Jesus spoke directly at sinners and declared, "Repent and believe."
Right. Young never rebukes these notions. As I've said, the whole scope of the book is to teach forgivness to human beings. "Letting go" as the author says. It's to forgive even those who harm us. He never says that Jesus will not judge those who deserve it. The little girl's murderer will get what he deserves.
@regelemihai, Paul Young has produced a book which is a theological work of darkness and it is already producing bad fruits. It propagates error, sin and a wrong idea of God. I have had New Agers and people of other religions tell me that Young's book gave them hope because they didn't have to become "Christians". A Christian is a person who follows Christ. This book is deadly and it is seductively disguised with a highly emotive story that brings false hope and counterfeit healing.
The Jesus of "The Shack" is nothing at all like the Jesus of the Bible. Young's Jesus is portrayed as a cartoonish bumbling child, not the almighty King of kings and Lord of lords.
Portraying God the Father as man is idolatry because no-one has ever seen Him except the Son (John 5:37, 6:46).
Read Romans 1:21-23, 25. You will find that a person who portrays the Father as any creature in creation has exchanged the truth for a lie. Young's representation of the Father is deeply sinful.
He is not portrayed as a man, he assumes physical form. He did it with Jesus, so it's illogical to assume that God can't do it again. It's in His divine freedom to do as he pleases.
It's just a literary device-- it's not literally God who is present as you can see, if you've read the whole thing, that later he takes on a different form. God is not a human.
The Father is portrayed as a human being - Young portrayed Him this way, not God.
The book is a heretical literary device written by a man who rejects the Word of God, even belittling it when he describes it as a book which induces guilt. Yet, the entire Old Testament was revealed by God to convict men of their guilt. Why does Paul Young consider this to be wrong?
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Gal 3:24)
Where in the bible does God the FAther EVER assume physical form? He never ever does, it is only the son, Jesus who incarnates. Why are we confusing the members of the trinity and why are we confusing things that the bible makes clear? Because someone is trying to construct a new worldview that is not kept by the confines of scripture. Do you not hear the hiss is that early statement of Genesis 3, "Did God really say"? Why would you buy into this or any one else who is a Christian?
He says that sin is its own punishment. He says that Jesus is the 'best way'.
The wages of sin is death.
Jesus says he is the only way period.
Where does Mac ever hear about judgement ? CAn you site a page? Papa I believe it is, states that most paths lead to no where. Really? Jesus says the Narrow paths lead to life and the broad road leads to death, hell and destruction. Where is there any talk of punishment? This is all part of Emergent theory and they eventually always bring panthiesm
YOu got it, you are very studied and I know the world does not care, but I do as your sister in Christ. Good work, dear. You are making God smile perhaps.
That is the whole issue with deception, you have a counterfeit, instead of the authentic and that is a great threat to the whole of men and women who trust in a fake concept and a little leaven leavens the whole lump, so evil grows and altered the truth to be something that ends up being the opposite altogether. Why are you not getting this? This is basic!
A change is a change is a change not matter who you try to deny that.
That book was written by a man who is influencing people and changing their worldview about major tenents of the scripture. What is hard to understand about that??
That's your interpretation of the text. The Gospel in no way makes that obvious. All the Gospel writers say that he died for our sins. No where does the advent of God punishing Jesus comes up.
And since Jesus was God incarnate( I don't think there is any dispute there, right?) why is it a heresy?
I don't dispute any of these claims. I do think it's an extrapolation to assume that God punished Jesus from Him screaming "Eloi Eloi la Shabachtani," but that's neither here n nor there.
It's a minor fact. I didn't even notice it while reading because I was too focused on the central point he was making(all pertaining to Jesus' nature and forgivness.)
It's silly to be a stickler concerning these discrapencies while ignoring the main points of the book which are all scriptural. No?
No, it is not, minor it is huge. Why bc subtle or gapping big changes that alter the word of God are not allowed, or appreciated, but they sure are a good indicator of who belong to the camp of the authentic wheat or bride and those who have itchy ears of the apostate chaff and are going to gather together all false religions into the Whore of Revelation 17.
Then after all that, makes this quasi-universal point that God didn't come to make Christians (?) but that people of all religions add JC?
Someone knows the bible really well. Good job Utopiang!
You are correct on all points!
Jude- contend for the faith that was once and for all times delivered to the saints, and believe not another Jesus or another gospel then the one given to you by us- Paul and Jude said as well as God, and you are doing well!
Have you read A "Wonderful" Deception by Warren Smith & the book Unshackled by Pastor Larry DeBruyn? Read these books to understand this "Fractals" component to Emerging thought.
He didn't punish Jesus. Jesus was without sin. The fact that upon him all the sin of mankind was laid doesn't mean that he was punsihed. He died in order to save us. god didn't exact wrath on a perfectly righteous man who was also his physical incarnation on earth.
@regelemihai, sin was laid on Christ's body. His soul and His spirit remained perfect and sinless but His body carried the shame. As Isaiah 53:6 states, God the Father supernaturally laid man's sins on Christ's body Himself.
"and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Right. That's what I'm saying. He carried our inequities upon him so that we can be saved. God doesn't punish him, though. He allows Him to die as a payment for our sins.
This is where I differ with many fundamentalist Christians. I take Jesus' word to be that of God. He was God in the flesh. Other parts of the Old Testament(or at least some) are not to be taken literally as we take Jesus' word to be that of God.
Isaiah was not God. Many spoke on God's behalf (that's the idolatry you were speaking of); that doesn't make their ruminations divine. Muslims believe that Muhammad was also divinly inspired. So? The qustion is what's more plausible.
@regelemihai, one of the fundamental changes that the Holy Spirit brings into an authentically regenerated believer is a love for the entirety of God's Word. This is what Jesus said about Scripture (keep in mind that from early childhood He avidly studied God's Word):
"Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17)
The men who spoke for God were ordained prophets. False prophets were put to death by God's command so serious is false prophesy (Deuteronomy 13:5).
Jesus also challanged some of the main tenets of that scripture including the "eye for an eye" aphorism that comes from the Mosaic code of conduct.
Jesus was God's fulfillment. It does not suffice for one to take it upon himself to write in God's word to make himself a prophet. Any preacher can do that. Claiming "God has told me that" is without foundation. How do we know He did? All we know is that Jesus was God. That is enough for me.
Just take original sin for example. Nowhere does it...
...appear in the Bible. It's an invention of later church fathers sucjh as Augustine and Origen. The only time it's even remotely suggested is at Romans 5:12 and it never says we're tainted with Adam's sin. The fact that they say it's Biblical all of a sudden makes it so? That's something any joe shmo can make. He can come forth claim he has received a message and we would take it to be divine. It's silly.
@regelemihai, you have been gravely misinformed. Remember, God is sovereign and He will preserve His Word forever. Man cannot thwart God's will.
The men who wrote the Word of God were shown to be under divine inspiration because the Word of God is infallible and no error has ever been found in it's truths.
The word of God is infallible. Human beings who write scripture aren't. God didn't write down his word, human beings did. Jesus brought the word. Any appeals to old scripture which are not spoken by Jesus aren't THAT relevant.
1.That is scary that you think God is so weak that man can alter his manuscripts and change things like that?
2.If we can get the same physical diseases inherited from our mother and father and so on, then why not spiritual as well.
3.You think you are good? You think you don't need to be reborn spiritually? That is the whole issue at hand to cure us from the spiritual death and separation form God that Adam brought onto us. We are born spiritually dead asevidenced by the law we break.
I don't disagree. I just reject original sin. The idea that Adam passed onto us his sin is nowhere to be found in the NT. Jesus never speaks of it. He bearly even mentions Adam at all. All that is said remotely about original sin can be found in Romans 5:12 and even there all it says is that Adam brought sin into the world and that we are sinners through our actions. Nowehere does it say that babies are born sinful Quite the contrary! (MT 18:3, MT 19:14, M 10:14 l 18:16 )
Do you deny that Adam and Eve passed on Spiritual Death? And Jesus most certainly talked about the fact that a person must be the opposite of that, which is to be born again. Do you admit that scripture says that Physical death and spiritual death are passed on to us? Curious......How do you explain Rom 3:21?
You haven't refuted any of the claims I laid against original sin, which includes the famous Romans 5:12. The only trhing you seem to suggest now is that Romans 3:21 does imply it. It's gravely mistaken. As you can see if you read two lines afterward my contention that our personal sin is condemned, not the fact that we're tainted by some other guy's sin: "For ALL HAVE SINNED and all fall short of the glory of God"- Romans 3:23.
It clearly states that we fall short by our actions.
It is woven all throuhg out scripture....The whole reason we need his blood is to bring us back in union and be born again...of course their is original sin, and our own too.
That is not a quote about original sin. It references a man who talk personally about himself and about his own trasgression. It doesn't say that he's born sinful because Adam sinned. He's talking about himself, not humanity.
If you read the line that precedes this one it becomes clear: "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight" Psalms 51:4
Ther Bible confirms that WE sin and we detach ourselfs from God just like Adam did by sinning.
Also, lest I forget about your second challange, here's the entire quote of James 1--"13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me."For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire,he is dragged away and enticed.Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. "
You pulled it out of context. It clearly says that WE are tempted. Adam is nowhere to be found
He did not challenge &the word, he was changing the context of a governmental like rule of "law and conduct" that a new nation, Israel, in the O T was given to help govern the people, to the topic interpersonal relationship, between people in their private relationships. Two different things. He is the fulfillment of grace and the forgiveness of sin, but that doesn't mean that impartial government rulings don't punish crimes. Two completely different things.
Yes, there it is, you found it. You are so good! I find myself saying similar things as you do, bc we are on the same page, but I don't realize it till I scroll down and see your comments. You are such a treasure, Utopiang.
There is a major disconnect here. Isaiah 55 I think it is, states the father poured out his wrath on to the son. A John Piper book has that very scripture and it states the very thing you are trying to deny. I will have to locate that book w/ the reference. I guess it is not 55; I will have to find it. IF you saw it in b & w, would you change your mind about the Father pouring wrath on the son in repentant believers' stead?
Did you ever think in your life you would see "Christians" deny the p. substitution???It is just crazy huh. It is like bible 101. Thanks to the neo- liberals and the apostasy that rages on, more tares will show their true colors. And that is happening at a time when people are biblically ignorant for the most part.
Google all the interviews he has ever done, and you will hear it from his own mouth. He does not give a good solid gospel message, but instead plays with concepts in the bible, bc he is writting a story, he feels he has free licence to alter details. Do some reasearch please.
Very good, but in an interview, you are probably aware of, Paul argues and gets quite upset and says that NO, he does not believe that the Father poured wrath onto the son, but he instead believes the father shared in Christ's pain w/ him. Who is pouring anything out on the cross if not the Father, I don't know. And then he recommended another book that says something against "the violence of the cross". Therefore, there are others who are also questioning certain aspects of the cross....wow!
Tell me how exactly is this lovely story at any point becomes a heresy? Where do you people see it? The part he preaches about love? Forgivness? reconcilliation. You're acting as if these CENTRAL tenets of Christinity aren't even that important. To you it's more important to preach about punishment and lakes of fire it would seem, a view which Jesus doesn't promote.
1.Why do you always seek to simplify everything? But by comparison this woman you are speaking w/ gives a point by point example to everything w/ corresponding scripture to correct error. Punishment is what should make people feel concern over their sin, so as to repent of it bc there is a court date impending against them, but a way of escape available to them. Revelation 20 shows all that. The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord. Salvation and judgment are always to go hand in hand.
Who do you think puts people into the Lake of fire, but Jesus? Have you read the bible? REvealtion 20 shows the Lamb's book of life, that people rejected the light and chose darkness instead, so their names are absent, and the books were opened of their deeds. The law is the moral measuring stick that their deeds will be measured against. People reject Jesus's atonement, then they pay for their own sins. Read Revelation. Read Jude. It is so clear. You would rather construct your own path, Cain
@regelemihai, John wrote down everything that Jesus commanded Him to and therefore the Author was Christ, not John. John was merely taking dictation which is why the book is called "Revelation":
Revelation 21:5 records Jesus Christ's own words to John:
And he who was seated on the throne [Christ] said, Behold, I am making all things new. Also he said, Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.
The Bible teaches that ALL Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16).
It's John of Patmos, as I said--not the apostle. And it's not a eye witness acount but supposedly a revelation; a spiritual encounter. I go by what Jesus directly said in the Gospels. The fact that Paul lectures about Christianity doesn't make him Jesus. I take his eye witness creeed in 1 Corinthians 15 to be accurate. But as far as theology goes, sometimes he has it right sometimes he doesn't. He didn't even know Jesus; neither did john of Patmos.
@regelemihai, John was an apostle. Like all the other apostles, he witnessed Christ.
If you ignore all but Christ's words then you are going to fall into error very easily because God has declared ALL scripture to be divinely inspired by Him.
Paul, like the other apostles had a personal encounter with Christ.
He spoke to Paul, but he didn't spill His commands upon him. He leads him through Dmascus. It was a test of his faith, not a trasmission of scripture. And like Isaid, we should be dubios concerning people who speak on God's or Christ's behalf simply because they say so. I'm more inclined to trust God's own spoken words(Jesus') that were trasmitted via eye witnesses; not people who later had supposed visions of him. Anyone can lay that claim. Muhammad did.
@regelemihai, Christ blinded Paul and made him obey Him. If you cannot trust God to use holy and righteous men to write Scripture then you will have a very limited knowledge of God.
Paul affirmed that he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
"If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 14:38)
I don't want to make outlandish claims, but some dispute 1 and 2 Peter were indeed written by Peter.
And while scripture was considered to be divine, like Isaid, Jesus challanged and changed many of those supposedly divine passages. His word is absolute.
@regelemihai, if you are now disputing that Peter was written by Peter then correction by the Word of God is made useless and therefore, the authoritive standard by which we come to know God is removed.
Witnesses who were men wrote down Christ's words and men translated them. How can you be certain that they are accurate and "absolute"?
What, if the Bible is no longer a final authority, is left for man to test all things by?
He does trust him to write it. But he is a fallible man, not God. While he was chosen by Christ to spread Christianity, he didn't know God's mind. Some of the things he said run contrary to Jesus' nature.
His(Paul's) chauvenism and anti-gay mantra--I don't think-- would either be supported by Jesus or condoned. I can scarcely think of any instance where Jesus talks about homosexuality or condemns it. I'm not claiming it's not necessarily a sin, but the fervor with which Paul tackles it is more indicative of his own motivation as a person than the will of a divine all loving God. Jesus, even when condemning sinners always took more docile positions including the "love thy enemy" position.
@regelemihai, Christ condemned homosexuality not only by inspiration but also when he affirmed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Matthew 10:15.
Christ's own brother Jude confirmed Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due to homosexual sin in Jude 1:7:
"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."
When Paul referred to his own opinion, he was simply stating that he was basing his understanding on OT scripture (1 Corinthians 7:12, 25). His views were still inspired by God.
Jesus made a prophetic claim that every word, even punctuation of Scripture (the original manuscripts) was inspired: "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18).
True, yet, as I said, he went on (even in the sermon on the mount) to rebuke many of the old notions that were inherent to Jewish scripture; that includes the Mosaic law which was thought of being divinly inspired as well.
Do I have to point these out to you? Just look at the sermon on the mount. How many precepts from the old covenant does Jesus change? I can number them on my fingers.
The "eye for an eye" one is also a pretty famous one. Jesus goes by "turn the other cheek."
Clarification: When I refer to inspiration by Christ I mean that it was HE who inspired the New Testament writers by the power of the Holy Spirit after His ascention.
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." (John 16:13)
Paul was not a chauvinist, he was obedient to the hierarchical structuring of the Church (i.e. Deacons, ministers etc.)
With regards to equality outside of these hierarchical element including a wife submitting to her husband as the Church submits to Christ (the Head), he made it clear that all are equal in Christ:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
I'm familair with Galatians 3:28. Yet when I point it out to atheists who are revolted by Paul's chauvenism( I know you reject that notion) they just flat-out ignore this passage.
But if there is a hierarchy between men and women, why would he say that a woman must be obedient and subserviant.
The church we are attending is doing a wonderful sermon right now on Eph 5 and that passage and, while we personally are not Calvinist, as Living Waters in Vancouver, Wa is, I must say Pastor Jeff rocked that sermon.
I'm glad there is an upsurge of Christians in Vancouver. I have very close friends there. The churches are doing a wonderful work in spreading the Gospel. Though I thought that secularism is prevalent in Canada.
While Sodom and Gomorah had homosexuality, this compartmentalization of the case is very superficial. Homosexuality is but a minor trasgression that happened there. Sin was rampent. It wasn't just a case against homosexuality. It's a case where sin is condemned as a whole.
Jude even says they were primarily condemed for promiscuity and fornication.
Also, Strange Flesh doesn't necessarily indicate homosexuality but, as the Harper Collins Bible calls it " Unnatural lust."
In context, in Gommorah the man wants to rape the angel instead of giving in to the two virgins. The act of raping is condemned and the act of wanting to rape the angel.
Natural lust = men and women having sex w/o benefit of marriage.
UNnatural sex would be 2 or more males and 2 or more females going AGAINST nature to have relations.
They were going to rape an angel that appeared in the male form and AFTER they were stuck blind, they still groped after them. MAD Crazy homosexual rape of a male person. Does that not tell you the plain truth? You must feel free to rip out parts fo the bible as often as you like. I am disturbed by your freedom to do that?
I'm not claiming homosexuality isn't necessarily a sin. What I'm saying is that it wasn't addressed as such a total abomination as opposed to modern day Fundamentalists who do act as if it was.
"Strange Flesh", similarly, isn't as staright forward as you paint it. In various traslations it means "unnatural lust" "unnatural sex" "perversion" etc. Fornication fits that picture as well.
As I said, the act of rape and especially committed against an Angel is a far better candidate for Jude's...
...condemnation than the homosexual factor which, althiugh not implausible, is irrelevant to the inital crime of a rape committed against an Agel.
Second, Sodom's major crimes were not just homosexuality but the lack of hospitality(just read the OT dilligently) and their mistreatment of the poor. The homosexuality issue doesn't have precendence over the other much more abominable acts of sin.
Again...I'm not condoning it, but lets be consistent here.
SCJohnWII, where in the Bible does Scripture state that God is not a God of rules/laws? What about the 10 commandments? Can man steal, murder, commit adultery and idolatry etc., without consequence? Have all God's laws fallen away somehow?
Is love God's only attribute or is He also holy, just and wrathful? Will everyone enter the Kingdom of Heaven or will many be cast into the lake of fire by God Himself?
Rules come from love. Don't you give your kids rules to lovingly protect them? I do. And guess what, that all come directly out of the bible to build a relationship w. my child and why would God be any different? Those things work in tantdem together! And please, what did Adam and Eve do right of the bat in Genesis 3? Did they break a 'rule' to not disobey God and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? He said don't, right? That was a rule. A rule to do what? Protect and love her/us
I too grew up in armstrongism- herbert was wrong about most things and was actually right about some but the spiritual abuse in armstrongism was horrible. Paul is a personal friend of mine and his little accidental book is a gift from the Father, Son, and Spirit to the wounded and hurting.
Young's book contradicts the Bible, is extremely irreverent towards a holy God, promotes New Age philosophies, the heresies of patripassianism, panentheism and modalism and credits thee Universalists (1 anarchist), a New Age Philosopher and a mystic.
Young publically states that God wrote the book through Him which puts "The Shack" on equal terms with Scripture.
Why would God exchange the Bible for a book that entirely contradicts His Word? Is it because it was inspired by the other god?
In some reports during a candid moment with Young, he states that this book was transcribed from true conversations, that he the author had with God during long drives. In fact he was going to name the "Conversations w/ God" till he found out there was a book ( from a New Ager) bearing that title already. He thinks this is God's take, instead of the clear cut Word of God. They are walking in the same foot steps as Lucifer when he said, "Did God really say!"
as a former member of armstrongism i can whole hardly identify with what paul young is talking about when it comes to legalism-make sure you're praying enough,paying enough,studying enough,going to church enough,doing this, doing that, so that through works we can hopefully gain the favor of this judge mental god who is looking down on us waiting for us to make a mistake so he can punish us.thanks Jesus for bringing paul out of his spiritual wreck closet.help bring us out of ours.
Legalism says that unless you are good enough, you can't get to God. But the bible says that bc man is fallen and seperated fom God and these laws show that, Jesus came into the world with GRACE or unearned favor to those who repent and believe. A true gospel shows that we can't earn our way to him by obeying rules. We do however observe the law out of love for each other and God, and God fills in the gaps. se don't have to await judgement, for breaking the rules, as we will, bc of the cross
As a registered social worker/psychotherapist and ordained minister, I am always saddened by the portions of the "Body" who can't see the "new wine" of the way Young has portrayed God to a new generation for fear of losing or distorting "orthodoxy"
"Shack" is NOT a theological treatise... it is a relational revelation - fictionally represented .
'Tis a sad thing indeed to be so misrepresented and maligned by some of "the old guard". Does it never end this side of Heaven?
I am staunchly opposed to the Emergent Church movement, and am very outspoken about the way New Age theology and deadly theology is infiltrating the Church.
I see the points that The Shack opposers make and I really just think that it's misguided in many ways. God cannot be boxed. Paul Young took God out of the typical Evangelical box and it's got people freaked out. Unfortunately, they have missed the messages of this book.
"God in a box" is really just code talk for "teachings not found in the bible".
God isn't in a box, we are. He has chosen to only reveal a certain amount of information which iis found in the bible and everything else is just speculation.
he did not take God out of the box. He took God outside the book - The Bible. Since god in the Shack never even stood next to the Holy One of the Bible.
Jurgen Moltmon is one of their heros and he says that God is intertwined with his creation and we need to stop focusing on armegedon, and instead focus on bringing the kingdom of God to earth and have hope again. This is coming from the heresy of others, but Christians today are mainly tares and don't even get it by and large!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Utopiang, you need to give it a rest. It's a book of fiction so who gives a crap what you think. Btw all religion is bullshit. Get a library card and do some research.
smelldirt, the book is fiction but the theology is VERY real and extremely dangerous. Christians are exhorted by Christ and the Apostles to warn others of the dangers of false theology. In fact,
ESTE LIBRO ES ESTUPENDO, OJALA Y LO PUEDAN HACER PELICULA ESO SERIA GENIAL.
TODAS LAS CRITICAS SON CAUSADAS POR LA FALTA DE MADURES ESPIRITUAL , Y LA OBECIDAD RELIGIOSA DE CADA PERSONA. PARA EMPESAR EL LIBRO ES UN LIBRO DE FICCION Y NO DE TEORIA. PERO SACUDE TUS CREENCIAS RELIGIOSAS
MIMUNDOSINMI 5 months ago
Dude, ur awesome. Love the book, LOVE the book.
darlingdarlene1 9 months ago
The Shack tells you what you wanna hear! But not the truth! Dont be a fool! No repentence - no salvation! The Bible is clear!
DukeOfDaCam 1 year ago
8 Spammer's dislike this vid.
Thumps up if you love the book ''The Shack'' !
DrogenKinder100 1 year ago 25
This has been flagged as spam show
take a romance tour to naughty women mworld5.info
uytiify 1 year ago
Asian women on the street lushfmlk.info
DeanDukes 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try Russian brides in your area gettop5.info
AlexisSimcu 1 year ago
But is that what the bible teaches? No! Jesus said I am from above, you are from below. And yes God says in Colossians that he made all things and holds them together, and is everywhere, though he makes it clear that he is eternal, outside of time and is not part of the creation with is finite and perishing. People need to ask themselves why is there a popular teaching like Leonard Sweet's book Quantum Spirituality w. thanks to David Spangler and Mathew Fox, you know, the new agers... same idea
john146only 2 years ago
Comment removed
john146only 2 years ago
I am trying to locate my copy, but there is this really strange thing that Paul has the "Trinity's version of papa," I believe, and she/he/it says that she is the or makes up the ground of all being? Really? So that would mean that we drag God from Above, down to our level here and that creation & God are one in the same. Therefore, you read this book, & you are endorsing that we are all one, and all god by the slick writing of this panthiestic and panenthiestic wordlview in Christian garb.
john146only 2 years ago
You all should read A "Wonderful" Deception by Warren Smith as well as Larry's DeBraun's Unshackled: Breaking Away from Seductive Spirituality.
Christians who rave over this book ought to begin asking themselves deeper questions like why does the word creation get capitalized when it means to deify something? Why does Mac & "The Trinity's version of the Holy Spirit" discuss 'fractals, which are used as a tool by New Agers in quantum physics to say we are one with all including God
john146only 2 years ago
@ele12957returns has now been reported to YouTube.
Utopiang 2 years ago
Oh, you got him booted and he is back?!
john146only 2 years ago
@ele12957returns will now be reported to YouTube for continuously abusing the Comment Search feature.
Utopiang 2 years ago
I have no problem with Christians voicing their opinions. I am myself. As such I see it as my right to contradict what I see as incongruous with Christianity.
If you say she's radical, I believe you. But so far she's been cordial with me, so... :P
regelemihai 2 years ago
regelemihai, unfortunately, this person ele12957returns follows me from video to video falsely accusing me and has done so for 10 months. Please do not take heed of his statements, they are untrue. PBTarget is not my husband but a Christian brother in America (I'm in Australia) and I do not have 'dozens of aliases'. Please do not be beguiled my enemy.
If you look at my channel you can make up your own mind about my beliefs. I have enjoyed our discussion and hope we can continue peaceably.
Utopiang 2 years ago
I testify to that!( ele12957)
You are very kind with this man who is in great error.
john146only 2 years ago
I harbor no ill will towards you Utopiang. Our differences should remain just that. I never let disagreements with other fellow Christians turn into hatered.
regelemihai 2 years ago
This book is a Hellish human attempt at downgrade of the incombrehensibly Holy and Exalted God into a septic soup of human attributes grounded in secular humanism. Turn you back on this blasphemy.
PBTarget 2 years ago
Outstanding Article by Al Mohler today on the subject...
On Al Mohler dot c o m, search:
The Missing Art of Evangelical Discernment.
Excellent summary of the deadly post-modern "would be" theology of this book.
PBTarget 2 years ago
Isaiah 55:8-9 (New King James Version)
8 For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways, says the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
PBTarget 2 years ago
Paul Young- my way of interpretation is orthodox because I say so, not the matyrs, my Jesus is unfettered not the Bible, God has no sex so He is a african woman.
Paul Young= Author of confusion!
JoaquinJB 2 years ago 3
God is not an African woman in the book. He just assumes that form at a certain point. Later in the book he assumes the form of an elderly man. It's just a literary device.
regelemihai 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I advice all to read about this religion Called ( ISLAM) it will surprise you and you will be passion of it
You can search for the Islam thru internet or reading some books
You will lose nothing just try
If you want to know meaning of love read about this religion
I Love you all
Multisclerosis 2 years ago
utopiang please keep up the good work even though you are outnumbered by so much ignorance and hatred you are not overpowered. They hate you because you love God and have invested time to study his word.The awful thing is that no christians coming to ur aid. meanwhile our message has to be salted in grace so that we may win who we can. Hell is real and i wouldnt want these guys in there. My heart cries in prayer for you. Well done
chaz10bug 2 years ago 3
Dear chaz10bug, thank you for your kindness and love. Your courage in speaking out for Christ and your wise words are a great comfort to me and to our brothers and sisters who are also outnumbered. It is a true saying that believers are known by their love for one another (John 13:35). This Christ-like love is revealed in your faithful stand for what is true and your conviction to declare the glory of the Lord beside your Brethren.
God bless you and keep you in our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
Utopiang 2 years ago
I still don't understand, why believers don't keep their religion to themselves? Every time, there is some Christian that starts quoting Bible like a wild man, yet he doesn't understand that that is the most stupid thing.
Anyway. Don't reply, please... you two.
2sSHenky 2 years ago
Every word written by eIe12957 is proven to be entirely false with a quick browse through to my channel Favourites. He is a Word of Faith minister who preaches a false gospel which denies the consequences of sin and the rejection of Christ (as does Paul Young).
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." (1 Thessalonians 5:3)
We cannot pretend that the unrepentant are safe.
Utopiang 2 years ago
let me reword that that God is on the God of mans rules or religious denomination rules
Read 1 Corinthians 13
SCJohnWIl 2 years ago
They do not understand the biblical def of love. Utopiang doesn't believe Love is just or that Love has fullfilled the law. She doesn't understand that love won't murder, bear false witness etc. she thinks it is the threat of punishment from God that will keep people doing right, this is why the Pharisee's never understood what Jesus was saying or doing. Utopiang like Pharisee's in Jesus day use fear & threats to try & get people to do right. Jesus used love and it is love that changes a heart.
eIe12957 2 years ago
I have had numerosu discussions with Utopiang and she really doesn't understand love from a biblical perspective Luke 6 pretty much undermines her whole theological foundation on who God is. Jesus said God is kind to the wicked and the evil Utopiang disagrees with Christ she believes the opposite of what Jesus taught about his father. thus why she hates this book so much, Calvinist believe that God only loves some and hates the rests even though the life of Christ teaches the direct opposite.
eIe12957 2 years ago
No, God certainly is NOT a God of man's rules. However, God's laws are sacred. The Word teaches us that God is a God of love but He is also a God of wrath, justice and judgment who will cast those who reject Christ into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).
If we teach only one part of the counsel of God then we deny His full character. If we deny His full character as revealed to us BY God, then we create a false god.
The WHOLE counsel of God must be declared for the truth to be made known.
Utopiang 2 years ago
"For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." (Acts 20:27)
"Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:" (Jeremiah 26:2)
We teach people the truth about God according to HIS commands. If we deny people this truth and the eternal consequences of rejecting Christ then the lost will remain lost.
Utopiang 2 years ago
All of God's wrath went upon Jesus, the wages of sin is death & only Jesus could do that, GET over it!
herongrove 2 years ago
herongrove, firstly, Young openly denies the penal substitutionary atonement. Secondly, those who reject Christ remain condemned. If a man dies unrepentant, he will be judged and condemned eternally.
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18)
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15)
Utopiang 2 years ago
Both quotes(again) are not what Jesus is saying but what the author is saying. Maybe I'm wrong myself, but can you point me anywhere in the four Gospels where Jesus is saying that if you don't believe in him you will burn eternally?
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, the Scriptures teach that anyone whose name is not written in the Lamb's book of life will be eternally damned (Revelation 20:10).
"But nothing unclean will ever enter it [holy city of Jerusalem come down from Heaven], nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lambs book of life." (Revelation 21:27 ESV)
"And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15 NASB)
Utopiang 2 years ago
Again Utopiang, those are not the musings of Jesus. Not only it's from the book of revelations and not from the Gopels, but it's not even Jesus' spoken word--it's John of Patmos's.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, I have shown you from God's Word that John was dictating what he heard from Christ. Therefore, the book of Revelation was written by Christ Himself, not by John.
Utopiang 2 years ago
He claims he heard it from Christ. It's not a historical account of Jesus' actual sayings like in the 4 Gospels. Anyone can claim he has received a message from God. As I said, many do that including Muhammad, but I don't think you'd consider Muhammad God's messanger simply because he said so.
Also, it's John of Patmos, not John the apostle. So there's no real correlation between Jesus and him.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Why would you deny John's identity? You were born in the 70;s, you were not an eye witness and yet you lack faith that God can keep the integrity of the original manuscripts, that were compared to the dead sea scrolls, are word for word perfect by scribes who were fastidious in their work. Why is that you don't have faith and the bible says whatever is not born of faith is sin? Don't you think that puts you and other liberals in a dangerous spot?
john146only 2 years ago
Not at all. While I don't deny scripture is divinly inspired, I do concede that it was written by fallible men. Only God is perfect and while the holy spirit is preserved in scripture, it is still written by fallible men.
Now, the point of roginal sin isn't even relevant to this objection because, as I've said, it's not even Biblica to begin with. It's an addendum given by early church fathers.Adams fall(Romans 5:12)simply shows us that he separated himself from God and that he(as well as we...
regelemihai 2 years ago
....do need faith in order to redeem ourselves. But nowhere does this concept appear that babies and humans are born servile and tainted because of Adam's sin. Adam intoroduced sin into the world and we have the ability and we all sin. That's why we need atonment.
It's also fair to point out that such a doctrine doesn't even appear in the OT where Adam is talked about the most.
regelemihai 2 years ago
So, you don't beleive that the Holy Spirit wrote through the hand of hand? You don't
even mention that it was Jesus who told John to write everything you see down and give it to the churches. What are you doing by trying to strip God, the Word, from his word. Go read a catechism please. And read 1 and 2 Timothy again, especially where it says that men were inspired by the HS to write the bible. Chapter 3, of 1 Tim I believe, could be 2nd Tim though. You are not lined up w/ scripture...
john146only 2 years ago
Oh, and where exactly did you get the idea in the book that Young rejects the substitutionary atonment? I can scarcely think o any instance where he even suggests it.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, before I answer your other questions, may I ask you what you believe about the penal substitutionary atonement? In other words, what do you believe took place on the cross between the Father and the Son?
Utopiang 2 years ago
@Utopiang
Jesus paid for our sins through his death. God forgives us on that basis. I can't put it in a simpler way.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, yes, that is the simplified version but my question is, how exactly did Jesus pay for our sins? What did the Father and Son do on the cross to make it possible for men to be justified?
Utopiang 2 years ago
He bore our sins upon himself. The debt of our trasgressions is therefore paid.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, how did the exchange happen?
Utopiang 2 years ago
By him dying on the cross.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, I am asking you these questions because there are very serious issues with what Paul Young believes took place on the cross. He denies the Scriptural truth, believing instead that man alone caused Christ to suffer on the cross, not God the Father. He has publically stated that a God who punishes His own Son is not a god he can trust and he openly mocks the Word of God from the pulpit (he is an ordained minister) regarding the great exchange/penal substitutionary atonement. (1)
Utopiang 2 years ago
Scripture teaches that God the Father supernaturally placed/imputed the sins of men onto His beloved Son's body (Isaiah 53:4-9). The Father then turned from the Son, rejecting Him in our place (Psalm 22:1, Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34). Finally, the Father poured out the full cup of wrath allotted to fallen men upon His Son (Is 53:4-10, Luke 22:42, Matt 20:22, 26:39). Christ was the substitute. When a man is supernaturally regenerated/made alive in Christ, Jesus' perfection is placed upon him. (2)
Utopiang 2 years ago
In "The Shack", Paul Young makes it clear that he believes that the Father not only had nothing to do with Jesus' death but that He was actually IN Christ which is a heresy known as "Patripassionism" ("Father suffered"). God the SON (fully man/fully God) was on the cross, the Father was in Heaven pouring out His wrath upon Him. Jesus was the spotless sacrificial lamb whom God demanded be sacrificed to atone for sin. Christ was slain by the Father's own decree, fulfilling His divine will. (3)
Utopiang 2 years ago
The account of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22) is a shadow of what occured between the Father and the Son to save men from sin and death. It is essential to our faith that we know who God is and what He did for us. If we have incorrect ideas about Him we commit the sin of idolatry by worshipping a different god. Young's entire book is filled with these same kinds of very serious errors and heresies. I warn people because I love God and His beloved sheep for whom He paid the ultimate price. (4)
Utopiang 2 years ago
@Utopiang - Excellent posts...Amen and Amen.
PBTarget 2 years ago
@PBTarget, God bless you, my dear brother. I am so glad to see you here.
Utopiang 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To hear William Paul Young deny the penal substitutionary atonement and also mock it during one of his sermons from the pulpit, you are welcome to visit the following sites:
(1) w w w(.)morebooksandthings(.)blogspot(.)com/2009/03/interview-with-william-young(.)html
(2) w w w(.)fightingforthefaith(.)com/2009/08/review-of-a-sermon-delivered-by-paul-young-author-of-the-shack(.)html
Remove the brackets when pasting the addresses into your search engine.
Utopiang 2 years ago
Again, how is God in this book different in what concerns the MAIN tenets of Christianity? Discrapencies, while being important, overshadow the bigger picture. God in the book is merciful, forgiving, wise, all powerful, loving. These are words actually uttered by Jesus, unlike the main doctrinal facets that were not. Then how can you rebel against this book with such fervor? Sure, sometimes it lacks depth, but you're ignoring the rest.
regelemihai 2 years ago
There are many false gods in the world that are loving and forgiving but they are still false gods. Idolatry is a vile sin in God's eyes and those who come to faith via Young's book are in grave danger of becoming false converts. Those who are already false converts will simply fall into greater error. It is a very serious matter indeed.
I am exposing the error in Young's book because it is deceptive and causes men to walk in error and on the wide road to Hell.
Utopiang 2 years ago
There's aren't many gods who are comprable in matters of forgivness and love as Jesus was, so I kinda' disagree. Second, those are the central tenets of Jesus' preaching. You can't dust them off and point to some other minor errors as if those are more important. That's a little extreme.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Homosexuals believe in a loving god who allows them to continue in their sins unrepentantly. Them there is the Mormon god and the Jehovah's witness god.
The central tenets of Christ's teachings can also be changed into a false gospel. He warned of Hell frequently and of the wrath to come. He taught that it was HE who would be seated upon the great white throne casting unbelievers into the lake of fire. God is primarily HOLY and His wrath and justice are not unloving or unrighteous.
Utopiang 2 years ago
There's not much doubting the Mormon god is incongruous with monotheism. You can't compare that to Jesus in The Shake. Mormons believe that God is a created begin precended by an infinte regress of gods continuously creating one another. That IS heretical. Presenting Jesus as loving is not. It's scriptural.
Yes, he will judge those who deserve Hell. Taking the lake of fire literally is a little off, but lets assume for the sake of argument its basis. Young never says that judgment won't come..
regelemihai 2 years ago
...he even says that he man who killed Meckenzies daughter will be unished. All he's saying is that we shouldn't be preoccupied with it because it's not our place to judge("Judge not lest ye not be juedged").
Pointing fingers are sinners and homosexuals is not what Jesus' would've done. Sinners will be judged in the afterlife, but it's not our place to judge. That comes straight from His mouth.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, I am not pointing fingers at homosexuals or sinners, I am showing you the error that comes of believing in a loving false god made in man's own image.
Jesus spoke directly at sinners and declared, "Repent and believe."
Utopiang 2 years ago
Right. Young never rebukes these notions. As I've said, the whole scope of the book is to teach forgivness to human beings. "Letting go" as the author says. It's to forgive even those who harm us. He never says that Jesus will not judge those who deserve it. The little girl's murderer will get what he deserves.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, Paul Young has produced a book which is a theological work of darkness and it is already producing bad fruits. It propagates error, sin and a wrong idea of God. I have had New Agers and people of other religions tell me that Young's book gave them hope because they didn't have to become "Christians". A Christian is a person who follows Christ. This book is deadly and it is seductively disguised with a highly emotive story that brings false hope and counterfeit healing.
Utopiang 2 years ago
Repent means to change your mind, it has little do with sin. You are still under the Law which we have been delivered from. Not good.
herongrove 2 years ago 2
The Jesus of "The Shack" is nothing at all like the Jesus of the Bible. Young's Jesus is portrayed as a cartoonish bumbling child, not the almighty King of kings and Lord of lords.
Portraying God the Father as man is idolatry because no-one has ever seen Him except the Son (John 5:37, 6:46).
Read Romans 1:21-23, 25. You will find that a person who portrays the Father as any creature in creation has exchanged the truth for a lie. Young's representation of the Father is deeply sinful.
Utopiang 2 years ago
He is not portrayed as a man, he assumes physical form. He did it with Jesus, so it's illogical to assume that God can't do it again. It's in His divine freedom to do as he pleases.
It's just a literary device-- it's not literally God who is present as you can see, if you've read the whole thing, that later he takes on a different form. God is not a human.
regelemihai 2 years ago
The Father is portrayed as a human being - Young portrayed Him this way, not God.
The book is a heretical literary device written by a man who rejects the Word of God, even belittling it when he describes it as a book which induces guilt. Yet, the entire Old Testament was revealed by God to convict men of their guilt. Why does Paul Young consider this to be wrong?
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Gal 3:24)
Utopiang 2 years ago
Where in the bible does God the FAther EVER assume physical form? He never ever does, it is only the son, Jesus who incarnates. Why are we confusing the members of the trinity and why are we confusing things that the bible makes clear? Because someone is trying to construct a new worldview that is not kept by the confines of scripture. Do you not hear the hiss is that early statement of Genesis 3, "Did God really say"? Why would you buy into this or any one else who is a Christian?
john146only 2 years ago
He says that sin is its own punishment. He says that Jesus is the 'best way'.
The wages of sin is death.
Jesus says he is the only way period.
Where does Mac ever hear about judgement ? CAn you site a page? Papa I believe it is, states that most paths lead to no where. Really? Jesus says the Narrow paths lead to life and the broad road leads to death, hell and destruction. Where is there any talk of punishment? This is all part of Emergent theory and they eventually always bring panthiesm
john146only 2 years ago
YOu got it, you are very studied and I know the world does not care, but I do as your sister in Christ. Good work, dear. You are making God smile perhaps.
john146only 2 years ago
That is the whole issue with deception, you have a counterfeit, instead of the authentic and that is a great threat to the whole of men and women who trust in a fake concept and a little leaven leavens the whole lump, so evil grows and altered the truth to be something that ends up being the opposite altogether. Why are you not getting this? This is basic!
john146only 2 years ago
A change is a change is a change not matter who you try to deny that.
That book was written by a man who is influencing people and changing their worldview about major tenents of the scripture. What is hard to understand about that??
john146only 2 years ago
That's your interpretation of the text. The Gospel in no way makes that obvious. All the Gospel writers say that he died for our sins. No where does the advent of God punishing Jesus comes up.
And since Jesus was God incarnate( I don't think there is any dispute there, right?) why is it a heresy?
regelemihai 2 years ago
I don't dispute any of these claims. I do think it's an extrapolation to assume that God punished Jesus from Him screaming "Eloi Eloi la Shabachtani," but that's neither here n nor there.
It's a minor fact. I didn't even notice it while reading because I was too focused on the central point he was making(all pertaining to Jesus' nature and forgivness.)
It's silly to be a stickler concerning these discrapencies while ignoring the main points of the book which are all scriptural. No?
regelemihai 2 years ago
No, it is not, minor it is huge. Why bc subtle or gapping big changes that alter the word of God are not allowed, or appreciated, but they sure are a good indicator of who belong to the camp of the authentic wheat or bride and those who have itchy ears of the apostate chaff and are going to gather together all false religions into the Whore of Revelation 17.
Then after all that, makes this quasi-universal point that God didn't come to make Christians (?) but that people of all religions add JC?
john146only 2 years ago
Someone knows the bible really well. Good job Utopiang!
You are correct on all points!
Jude- contend for the faith that was once and for all times delivered to the saints, and believe not another Jesus or another gospel then the one given to you by us- Paul and Jude said as well as God, and you are doing well!
Have you read A "Wonderful" Deception by Warren Smith & the book Unshackled by Pastor Larry DeBruyn? Read these books to understand this "Fractals" component to Emerging thought.
john146only 2 years ago
He didn't punish Jesus. Jesus was without sin. The fact that upon him all the sin of mankind was laid doesn't mean that he was punsihed. He died in order to save us. god didn't exact wrath on a perfectly righteous man who was also his physical incarnation on earth.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, sin was laid on Christ's body. His soul and His spirit remained perfect and sinless but His body carried the shame. As Isaiah 53:6 states, God the Father supernaturally laid man's sins on Christ's body Himself.
"and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Utopiang 2 years ago
Right. That's what I'm saying. He carried our inequities upon him so that we can be saved. God doesn't punish him, though. He allows Him to die as a payment for our sins.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, Isaiah 54:10 states that it was God the Father who crushed Christ:
"But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;"
Utopiang 2 years ago
This is where I differ with many fundamentalist Christians. I take Jesus' word to be that of God. He was God in the flesh. Other parts of the Old Testament(or at least some) are not to be taken literally as we take Jesus' word to be that of God.
Isaiah was not God. Many spoke on God's behalf (that's the idolatry you were speaking of); that doesn't make their ruminations divine. Muslims believe that Muhammad was also divinly inspired. So? The qustion is what's more plausible.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, one of the fundamental changes that the Holy Spirit brings into an authentically regenerated believer is a love for the entirety of God's Word. This is what Jesus said about Scripture (keep in mind that from early childhood He avidly studied God's Word):
"Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17)
The men who spoke for God were ordained prophets. False prophets were put to death by God's command so serious is false prophesy (Deuteronomy 13:5).
Utopiang 2 years ago
Jesus also challanged some of the main tenets of that scripture including the "eye for an eye" aphorism that comes from the Mosaic code of conduct.
Jesus was God's fulfillment. It does not suffice for one to take it upon himself to write in God's word to make himself a prophet. Any preacher can do that. Claiming "God has told me that" is without foundation. How do we know He did? All we know is that Jesus was God. That is enough for me.
Just take original sin for example. Nowhere does it...
regelemihai 2 years ago
...appear in the Bible. It's an invention of later church fathers sucjh as Augustine and Origen. The only time it's even remotely suggested is at Romans 5:12 and it never says we're tainted with Adam's sin. The fact that they say it's Biblical all of a sudden makes it so? That's something any joe shmo can make. He can come forth claim he has received a message and we would take it to be divine. It's silly.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, you have been gravely misinformed. Remember, God is sovereign and He will preserve His Word forever. Man cannot thwart God's will.
The men who wrote the Word of God were shown to be under divine inspiration because the Word of God is infallible and no error has ever been found in it's truths.
Utopiang 2 years ago
The word of God is infallible. Human beings who write scripture aren't. God didn't write down his word, human beings did. Jesus brought the word. Any appeals to old scripture which are not spoken by Jesus aren't THAT relevant.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Wow!
john146only 2 years ago
1.That is scary that you think God is so weak that man can alter his manuscripts and change things like that?
2.If we can get the same physical diseases inherited from our mother and father and so on, then why not spiritual as well.
3.You think you are good? You think you don't need to be reborn spiritually? That is the whole issue at hand to cure us from the spiritual death and separation form God that Adam brought onto us. We are born spiritually dead asevidenced by the law we break.
john146only 2 years ago
I don't disagree. I just reject original sin. The idea that Adam passed onto us his sin is nowhere to be found in the NT. Jesus never speaks of it. He bearly even mentions Adam at all. All that is said remotely about original sin can be found in Romans 5:12 and even there all it says is that Adam brought sin into the world and that we are sinners through our actions. Nowehere does it say that babies are born sinful Quite the contrary! (MT 18:3, MT 19:14, M 10:14 l 18:16 )
regelemihai 2 years ago
Do you deny that Adam and Eve passed on Spiritual Death? And Jesus most certainly talked about the fact that a person must be the opposite of that, which is to be born again. Do you admit that scripture says that Physical death and spiritual death are passed on to us? Curious......How do you explain Rom 3:21?
john146only 2 years ago
You haven't refuted any of the claims I laid against original sin, which includes the famous Romans 5:12. The only trhing you seem to suggest now is that Romans 3:21 does imply it. It's gravely mistaken. As you can see if you read two lines afterward my contention that our personal sin is condemned, not the fact that we're tainted by some other guy's sin: "For ALL HAVE SINNED and all fall short of the glory of God"- Romans 3:23.
It clearly states that we fall short by our actions.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, original sin is very clearly taught both in James 1:15 which reveals what took place when Adam and Eve sinned:
"Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death."
Also see Psalm 51:5:
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me."
Utopiang 2 years ago
Your apologetics rock! Utopiang!
It is woven all throuhg out scripture....The whole reason we need his blood is to bring us back in union and be born again...of course their is original sin, and our own too.
john146only 2 years ago
That is not a quote about original sin. It references a man who talk personally about himself and about his own trasgression. It doesn't say that he's born sinful because Adam sinned. He's talking about himself, not humanity.
If you read the line that precedes this one it becomes clear: "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight" Psalms 51:4
Ther Bible confirms that WE sin and we detach ourselfs from God just like Adam did by sinning.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Also, lest I forget about your second challange, here's the entire quote of James 1--"13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me."For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire,he is dragged away and enticed.Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. "
You pulled it out of context. It clearly says that WE are tempted. Adam is nowhere to be found
regelemihai 2 years ago
He did not challenge &the word, he was changing the context of a governmental like rule of "law and conduct" that a new nation, Israel, in the O T was given to help govern the people, to the topic interpersonal relationship, between people in their private relationships. Two different things. He is the fulfillment of grace and the forgiveness of sin, but that doesn't mean that impartial government rulings don't punish crimes. Two completely different things.
john146only 2 years ago
Yes, there it is, you found it. You are so good! I find myself saying similar things as you do, bc we are on the same page, but I don't realize it till I scroll down and see your comments. You are such a treasure, Utopiang.
john146only 2 years ago
There is a major disconnect here. Isaiah 55 I think it is, states the father poured out his wrath on to the son. A John Piper book has that very scripture and it states the very thing you are trying to deny. I will have to locate that book w/ the reference. I guess it is not 55; I will have to find it. IF you saw it in b & w, would you change your mind about the Father pouring wrath on the son in repentant believers' stead?
john146only 2 years ago
Did you ever think in your life you would see "Christians" deny the p. substitution???It is just crazy huh. It is like bible 101. Thanks to the neo- liberals and the apostasy that rages on, more tares will show their true colors. And that is happening at a time when people are biblically ignorant for the most part.
john146only 2 years ago
Google all the interviews he has ever done, and you will hear it from his own mouth. He does not give a good solid gospel message, but instead plays with concepts in the bible, bc he is writting a story, he feels he has free licence to alter details. Do some reasearch please.
john146only 2 years ago
Very good, but in an interview, you are probably aware of, Paul argues and gets quite upset and says that NO, he does not believe that the Father poured wrath onto the son, but he instead believes the father shared in Christ's pain w/ him. Who is pouring anything out on the cross if not the Father, I don't know. And then he recommended another book that says something against "the violence of the cross". Therefore, there are others who are also questioning certain aspects of the cross....wow!
john146only 2 years ago
Tell me how exactly is this lovely story at any point becomes a heresy? Where do you people see it? The part he preaches about love? Forgivness? reconcilliation. You're acting as if these CENTRAL tenets of Christinity aren't even that important. To you it's more important to preach about punishment and lakes of fire it would seem, a view which Jesus doesn't promote.
regelemihai 2 years ago
1.Why do you always seek to simplify everything? But by comparison this woman you are speaking w/ gives a point by point example to everything w/ corresponding scripture to correct error. Punishment is what should make people feel concern over their sin, so as to repent of it bc there is a court date impending against them, but a way of escape available to them. Revelation 20 shows all that. The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord. Salvation and judgment are always to go hand in hand.
john146only 2 years ago
Who do you think puts people into the Lake of fire, but Jesus? Have you read the bible? REvealtion 20 shows the Lamb's book of life, that people rejected the light and chose darkness instead, so their names are absent, and the books were opened of their deeds. The law is the moral measuring stick that their deeds will be measured against. People reject Jesus's atonement, then they pay for their own sins. Read Revelation. Read Jude. It is so clear. You would rather construct your own path, Cain
john146only 2 years ago
The book of Revelations you quote is the work of John ---Not Jesus'.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, John wrote down everything that Jesus commanded Him to and therefore the Author was Christ, not John. John was merely taking dictation which is why the book is called "Revelation":
Revelation 21:5 records Jesus Christ's own words to John:
And he who was seated on the throne [Christ] said, Behold, I am making all things new. Also he said, Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.
The Bible teaches that ALL Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16).
Utopiang 2 years ago
It's John of Patmos, as I said--not the apostle. And it's not a eye witness acount but supposedly a revelation; a spiritual encounter. I go by what Jesus directly said in the Gospels. The fact that Paul lectures about Christianity doesn't make him Jesus. I take his eye witness creeed in 1 Corinthians 15 to be accurate. But as far as theology goes, sometimes he has it right sometimes he doesn't. He didn't even know Jesus; neither did john of Patmos.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, John was an apostle. Like all the other apostles, he witnessed Christ.
If you ignore all but Christ's words then you are going to fall into error very easily because God has declared ALL scripture to be divinely inspired by Him.
Paul, like the other apostles had a personal encounter with Christ.
Utopiang 2 years ago
An encounter, true; not a theological debate. His encounter validated Christ's divine nature.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, Christ personally appeared to and spoke with both men which was essential to their being ordained as apostles.
Utopiang 2 years ago
He spoke to Paul, but he didn't spill His commands upon him. He leads him through Dmascus. It was a test of his faith, not a trasmission of scripture. And like Isaid, we should be dubios concerning people who speak on God's or Christ's behalf simply because they say so. I'm more inclined to trust God's own spoken words(Jesus') that were trasmitted via eye witnesses; not people who later had supposed visions of him. Anyone can lay that claim. Muhammad did.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, Christ blinded Paul and made him obey Him. If you cannot trust God to use holy and righteous men to write Scripture then you will have a very limited knowledge of God.
Paul affirmed that he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
"If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 14:38)
Utopiang 2 years ago
The Old Testament writings were confirmed in 2 Peter 1:21:
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Utopiang 2 years ago
I don't want to make outlandish claims, but some dispute 1 and 2 Peter were indeed written by Peter.
And while scripture was considered to be divine, like Isaid, Jesus challanged and changed many of those supposedly divine passages. His word is absolute.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, if you are now disputing that Peter was written by Peter then correction by the Word of God is made useless and therefore, the authoritive standard by which we come to know God is removed.
Witnesses who were men wrote down Christ's words and men translated them. How can you be certain that they are accurate and "absolute"?
What, if the Bible is no longer a final authority, is left for man to test all things by?
Utopiang 2 years ago
He does trust him to write it. But he is a fallible man, not God. While he was chosen by Christ to spread Christianity, he didn't know God's mind. Some of the things he said run contrary to Jesus' nature.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, please would you provide evidence that the apostle taught doctrines that ran contrary to Jesus' nature?
Utopiang 2 years ago
His(Paul's) chauvenism and anti-gay mantra--I don't think-- would either be supported by Jesus or condoned. I can scarcely think of any instance where Jesus talks about homosexuality or condemns it. I'm not claiming it's not necessarily a sin, but the fervor with which Paul tackles it is more indicative of his own motivation as a person than the will of a divine all loving God. Jesus, even when condemning sinners always took more docile positions including the "love thy enemy" position.
regelemihai 2 years ago
@regelemihai, Christ condemned homosexuality not only by inspiration but also when he affirmed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Matthew 10:15.
Christ's own brother Jude confirmed Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due to homosexual sin in Jude 1:7:
"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."
Utopiang 2 years ago
When Paul referred to his own opinion, he was simply stating that he was basing his understanding on OT scripture (1 Corinthians 7:12, 25). His views were still inspired by God.
Jesus made a prophetic claim that every word, even punctuation of Scripture (the original manuscripts) was inspired: "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18).
Utopiang 2 years ago
True, yet, as I said, he went on (even in the sermon on the mount) to rebuke many of the old notions that were inherent to Jewish scripture; that includes the Mosaic law which was thought of being divinly inspired as well.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Pardon?
How is Jesus rebuking Mosaic law? Explain your argument please. Who do you think gave Moses a standard by which to view life, but the trinity?
john146only 2 years ago
Do I have to point these out to you? Just look at the sermon on the mount. How many precepts from the old covenant does Jesus change? I can number them on my fingers.
The "eye for an eye" one is also a pretty famous one. Jesus goes by "turn the other cheek."
regelemihai 2 years ago
Clarification: When I refer to inspiration by Christ I mean that it was HE who inspired the New Testament writers by the power of the Holy Spirit after His ascention.
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." (John 16:13)
Utopiang 2 years ago
Paul was not a chauvinist, he was obedient to the hierarchical structuring of the Church (i.e. Deacons, ministers etc.)
With regards to equality outside of these hierarchical element including a wife submitting to her husband as the Church submits to Christ (the Head), he made it clear that all are equal in Christ:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
Utopiang 2 years ago
I'm familair with Galatians 3:28. Yet when I point it out to atheists who are revolted by Paul's chauvenism( I know you reject that notion) they just flat-out ignore this passage.
But if there is a hierarchy between men and women, why would he say that a woman must be obedient and subserviant.
regelemihai 2 years ago
The church we are attending is doing a wonderful sermon right now on Eph 5 and that passage and, while we personally are not Calvinist, as Living Waters in Vancouver, Wa is, I must say Pastor Jeff rocked that sermon.
john146only 2 years ago
I'm glad there is an upsurge of Christians in Vancouver. I have very close friends there. The churches are doing a wonderful work in spreading the Gospel. Though I thought that secularism is prevalent in Canada.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Vancouver, WA. USA
:)
john146only 2 years ago
I missed the WA abbriviation :P
regelemihai 2 years ago
While Sodom and Gomorah had homosexuality, this compartmentalization of the case is very superficial. Homosexuality is but a minor trasgression that happened there. Sin was rampent. It wasn't just a case against homosexuality. It's a case where sin is condemned as a whole.
Jude even says they were primarily condemed for promiscuity and fornication.
" giving themselves over to fornication."
But again, Jesus never outright condemns it.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Also, Strange Flesh doesn't necessarily indicate homosexuality but, as the Harper Collins Bible calls it " Unnatural lust."
In context, in Gommorah the man wants to rape the angel instead of giving in to the two virgins. The act of raping is condemned and the act of wanting to rape the angel.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Natural lust = men and women having sex w/o benefit of marriage.
UNnatural sex would be 2 or more males and 2 or more females going AGAINST nature to have relations.
They were going to rape an angel that appeared in the male form and AFTER they were stuck blind, they still groped after them. MAD Crazy homosexual rape of a male person. Does that not tell you the plain truth? You must feel free to rip out parts fo the bible as often as you like. I am disturbed by your freedom to do that?
john146only 2 years ago
I'm not claiming homosexuality isn't necessarily a sin. What I'm saying is that it wasn't addressed as such a total abomination as opposed to modern day Fundamentalists who do act as if it was.
"Strange Flesh", similarly, isn't as staright forward as you paint it. In various traslations it means "unnatural lust" "unnatural sex" "perversion" etc. Fornication fits that picture as well.
As I said, the act of rape and especially committed against an Angel is a far better candidate for Jude's...
regelemihai 2 years ago
...condemnation than the homosexual factor which, althiugh not implausible, is irrelevant to the inital crime of a rape committed against an Agel.
Second, Sodom's major crimes were not just homosexuality but the lack of hospitality(just read the OT dilligently) and their mistreatment of the poor. The homosexuality issue doesn't have precendence over the other much more abominable acts of sin.
Again...I'm not condoning it, but lets be consistent here.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Homosexual behavior falls into the bracket of fornication, does it not? Romans 1 ?
john146only 2 years ago
You are deluded...
john146only 2 years ago
You are a bundle of joy. I think I love you. No no, I KNOW it!
regelemihai 2 years ago
God in the shack is God in the Bible
God is not a God of Rules but of Love
1 Corinthians 13
SCJohnWIl 2 years ago
SCJohnWII, where in the Bible does Scripture state that God is not a God of rules/laws? What about the 10 commandments? Can man steal, murder, commit adultery and idolatry etc., without consequence? Have all God's laws fallen away somehow?
Is love God's only attribute or is He also holy, just and wrathful? Will everyone enter the Kingdom of Heaven or will many be cast into the lake of fire by God Himself?
Utopiang 2 years ago
There is a famine in the land for the word of God today....
john146only 2 years ago
Rules come from love. Don't you give your kids rules to lovingly protect them? I do. And guess what, that all come directly out of the bible to build a relationship w. my child and why would God be any different? Those things work in tantdem together! And please, what did Adam and Eve do right of the bat in Genesis 3? Did they break a 'rule' to not disobey God and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? He said don't, right? That was a rule. A rule to do what? Protect and love her/us
john146only 2 years ago
I too grew up in armstrongism- herbert was wrong about most things and was actually right about some but the spiritual abuse in armstrongism was horrible. Paul is a personal friend of mine and his little accidental book is a gift from the Father, Son, and Spirit to the wounded and hurting.
prokopto 2 years ago
Young's book contradicts the Bible, is extremely irreverent towards a holy God, promotes New Age philosophies, the heresies of patripassianism, panentheism and modalism and credits thee Universalists (1 anarchist), a New Age Philosopher and a mystic.
Young publically states that God wrote the book through Him which puts "The Shack" on equal terms with Scripture.
Why would God exchange the Bible for a book that entirely contradicts His Word? Is it because it was inspired by the other god?
Utopiang 2 years ago
In some reports during a candid moment with Young, he states that this book was transcribed from true conversations, that he the author had with God during long drives. In fact he was going to name the "Conversations w/ God" till he found out there was a book ( from a New Ager) bearing that title already. He thinks this is God's take, instead of the clear cut Word of God. They are walking in the same foot steps as Lucifer when he said, "Did God really say!"
john146only 2 years ago
So, God is the ground of all being huh?
That would make God part of the creation too. Is that what the bible teaches?
john146only 2 years ago
as a former member of armstrongism i can whole hardly identify with what paul young is talking about when it comes to legalism-make sure you're praying enough,paying enough,studying enough,going to church enough,doing this, doing that, so that through works we can hopefully gain the favor of this judge mental god who is looking down on us waiting for us to make a mistake so he can punish us.thanks Jesus for bringing paul out of his spiritual wreck closet.help bring us out of ours.
1954clyde 2 years ago
Legalism says that unless you are good enough, you can't get to God. But the bible says that bc man is fallen and seperated fom God and these laws show that, Jesus came into the world with GRACE or unearned favor to those who repent and believe. A true gospel shows that we can't earn our way to him by obeying rules. We do however observe the law out of love for each other and God, and God fills in the gaps. se don't have to await judgement, for breaking the rules, as we will, bc of the cross
john146only 2 years ago
As a registered social worker/psychotherapist and ordained minister, I am always saddened by the portions of the "Body" who can't see the "new wine" of the way Young has portrayed God to a new generation for fear of losing or distorting "orthodoxy"
"Shack" is NOT a theological treatise... it is a relational revelation - fictionally represented .
'Tis a sad thing indeed to be so misrepresented and maligned by some of "the old guard". Does it never end this side of Heaven?
adeadmanwalkincdn 2 years ago
Comment removed
1954clyde 2 years ago
I am staunchly opposed to the Emergent Church movement, and am very outspoken about the way New Age theology and deadly theology is infiltrating the Church.
I see the points that The Shack opposers make and I really just think that it's misguided in many ways. God cannot be boxed. Paul Young took God out of the typical Evangelical box and it's got people freaked out. Unfortunately, they have missed the messages of this book.
mskolas 2 years ago
Well said.
revolutionconway 2 years ago
very well said
tsidkenu223 2 years ago
mskolas, your discernment is correct.
iwant2go2 2 years ago
"God in a box" is really just code talk for "teachings not found in the bible".
God isn't in a box, we are. He has chosen to only reveal a certain amount of information which iis found in the bible and everything else is just speculation.
gtrjunky 2 years ago 6
I really love your comments! gtrjunky!
john146only 2 years ago
he did not take God out of the box. He took God outside the book - The Bible. Since god in the Shack never even stood next to the Holy One of the Bible.
masterowa 2 years ago 6
Jurgen Moltmon is one of their heros and he says that God is intertwined with his creation and we need to stop focusing on armegedon, and instead focus on bringing the kingdom of God to earth and have hope again. This is coming from the heresy of others, but Christians today are mainly tares and don't even get it by and large!
john146only 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think the fact that Christians can't even agree on what god or Jesus looks like is proof enough they(or him/her) never existed.
Bojaxs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
HE is especially fond of you George He really is !
musicgeek3 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¸„ø¤º°¨ post to 3 other vids
¨°º¤ø„¸ Copy „ø¤º°¨ press F5 twice
¸„ø¤º°¨Paste ``°º¤ø„¸ OK
¸„ø¤º°¨¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º look at ur backgroud
iainisere2k9 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
People still believe in God? He wasn't raised in the secular West, so I guess that's his excuse. Get with the times.
seansotheman 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Step 1:Hold your breath
Step 2:go to another video
Step 3: add this comment
Step 4:did you make it? if you did it, you are a good kisser
audreywoohoe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Utopiang, you need to give it a rest. It's a book of fiction so who gives a crap what you think. Btw all religion is bullshit. Get a library card and do some research.
smelldirt 2 years ago
smelldirt, the book is fiction but the theology is VERY real and extremely dangerous. Christians are exhorted by Christ and the Apostles to warn others of the dangers of false theology. In fact,