HERE is proof that even a wonderful annointed book like " the shack" that emphesizes Gods Love, will be attacked by religious fanatics ! Some of you critics simply need to stop being religous and meet Jesus.
Why are people who claim to be such devout Christians so afraid of what someone else might write? Is God that weak, or Jesus that weak, that a book written by a mere mortal is going to endanger Him. I haven't read this book, but I find your concern about it hilarious, to say the least.
I read some of the other reply's given to you by others, and it seems that your Christian views are questionable. I think that you need to examine what you're really doing here and by what purpose you are attacking this book in the manner in which you are.
SoldierofA, I lovingly encourage you to read my Biblical examination of the penal substitutionary atonement on the following video forum:
watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y
You will find that the Scriptural teaching entirely contradicts Young's statements in "The Shack" (and in his sermons) on the crucifixion. Please feel free to question my contextual exegesis if you wish to. I would welcome your queries. (1)
For instance, Young states the God the Father was on the cross with God the Son (pp. 95) which is the heresy of patripassianism (literally "Father suffered"). Young insists that the Father was in the Son on the cross but he has actually made a fatal error. Yes God was on the cross but it was God the SON, not God the Father. The Father was in Heaven sacrificing His Son for His lost sheep. (2)
The account of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac, represents the atonement. It was Abraham who readied himself to plunge the dagger into his child, no-one else. It was HE who was to kill his son by his own hand at the command of God (Genesis 22:1-19).
We see here the shadow of the sacrifice the God the Father would make for the sins of His sheep when He put His only begotten and beloved Son to death for them. And, like Isaac, Jesus willingly laid down His life. (3)
We know from studying Isaiah 53:4, 10 and 10 that the Father placed iniquity upon Son and then poured His wrath upon Him in our place. We also know from Psalm 22:1, Mark 15:33-35 and Matthew 27:46 that Jesus was rejected by God in our place. Young denies both these imperative tenets in his book and in public. He has made it clear that any God who kills His own Son is not a God he wants anything to do with. Yet, it is the greatest act of love ever known in the history of mankind. (4)
Young's denial of the penal substitutionary atonement can be heard on these two recordings online:
1. "More Books and Things - Interview with William Young - ALERT"
2. "Fighting For the Faith - Review of a Sermon Delivered by Paul Young, Author of the Shack" (5)
I hope that this is helpful to you in understanding my position on "The Shack", SoldierofA. Please feel free to ask me anything on these matters as I am your servant in Christ and I would be glad to answer you. (5)
@Utopiang Read the bible again. 1 Corinthians 5:19 shines Light on the lie that God ever left Christ. Psalms 22:1 is about the mind of Christ while nailed to the cross that day. 1 Corinthians 5:18-20, let us know that God was there in the body of Christ the entire time that the crucifixtion took place. God loves. God sorrows. God was there in Christ..... just as God is all-present.
@Utopiang We put Christ to death. We unwittingly made Christ the sacrifice and Satan's plan was defeated. God "GAVE" The Only Begotten. God did not take the Life of Christ, but allowed it to be taken. Christ gave himself. We killed him.
Hi @KeyboardPacifist, you are right that Christ gave himself willingly, the Word is clear on this. Yes, men killed Jesus (both Romans and Jews). This was ordained by God (Rev. 13:8). The punishment/wrath which redeems men who are dead in their sins came from the Father. GOD the SON was on the cross; GOD the FATHER was in Heaven pouring out the full cup of His wrath upon Christ. The spilling of Christ's blood and His taking the punishment in our place made a way where there was no way before.
@Utopiang Its the reason we can wake up & smile. I think that Mr.Young was just doing his best to serve. That's what we are all here to do. We're not here to bash each other with doctrinal differences. We are friends of The Almighty and we listen to The Voice of God. If Paul is preaching another Gospel, then he needs to be corrected. But your last two posts are The Gospel ! praise God! & that's the same Gospel that Mr.Young preached. The rest of what we do is a vain grasping at the wind
(1) Hello again, I would encourage you to visit two websites which thoroughly explain all the problems with William Paul Young's theology in "The Shack". I agree that we are not to "bash each other" but to lovingly guide one another regarding biblical errors which thwart a person's salvation (or effectiveness for Christ ). We must correct the unsaved who do not yet know Him. Brother/sister, Paul Young's book and background reveal that he believes a different gospel, a subtle and seductive one.
@Utopiang Hmm... I'll check out the websites. No one, despite a good story telling, gets a free pas.. and if he's teaching a soft, self-centered gospel, then I won't condone it. So far, ....Im not fully at ease with what Mr.Young preaches in his views on "liberality" and "legalism" in regards to Torah and Grace. This is, so far, the only thing that I do not agree with him about. I don't think he gets the point of Torah or Holiness. But ... I dont think hes pushing hyperliberalism
@KeyboardPacifist, yes, please do, brother. It will open your eyes to grave errors in "The Shack". Young is involved in the Emergent movement and recently promoted the works of Brad Jerzack, an Emergent author. He also credits 2 universalists and a Christian Anarchist in the credits of "The Shack". On His website WindRumors he claims that Jaques Ellul (a Christan anarchist and heretic) as his favourite author of all time. If he is not a committed liberal yet, he is readying himself for it.
@KeyboardPacifist, God bless you richly, brother. I hope to hear from you by PM or meet you in the comment sections again in the future. Peace and love to you and yours in Christ Jesus.
@Utopiang YHWH regretted mankind at the time of Noah. YHWH felt sorrow upon punishing Jerusalem for the census. YHWH so Loved the Kosmos, that God gave Christ to be sacrificed. We love a God who loves us back. God does not have "nerve endings" or simple neuronal structures that produce simple human emotions but God has expressed (through the Prophets) that God feels in a way that we do not understand. 1 Cor 5:18-20. God is omnipresent & was there in the body of Christ. Shalom
God experiences a full gamut of emotions. This is shown to us by His anger, sorrow, joy, regret, humour. laughter and the tears Christ wept over Jerusalem and Lazareth. Of course, His emotions are pure and perfect but since we are made in His image, we know that He expresses the same emotions. Yes, God is loving but He is also wrathful, vengeful, jealous, compassionate, kind and above all HOLY. Whilst there is one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 distinct persons in perfect union.
@Utopiang All that you said is true. Yet that does not exclude YHWH from being present in all parts of the universe (as David tells us) & also present in Christ at the Crucifixtion. We are talking about the Omnipresence of God, not "sin unpresentable before the Throne." God is Holy. God was/is well-pleased with & In His Only Begotten.
Mr.Youngs point was an apologetic approach to people who reject God based on their notion of "the separation" that Christ felt. It was his MOST human moment
(1) Brother, let us go to the scriptures together (2 Corinthians 5:19):
"...that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation."
This verse states that "in Christ God was". Jesus was God the SON in human form and therefore God was in Him. He is the second person of the trinity. God the Father was not in Christ but was in Heaven pouring out His wrath upon Him.
(2) When the sky turned to utter darkness this was when the Father turned His face away from Christ. This was when the Father placed sin upon His beloved and blameless Son (see Isaiah 53:6, 1 Pet. 2:24 and Habakkuk 1:13). Christ, abandoned during this time, called out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46). Once the wrath of God had been completely poured out, Jesus declared "It is finished" and the Father returned to His Son to receive His spirit (Luke 23:46).
(3) Christ was rejected by the Father in the same way that the unredeemed will be abandoned when they are judged after death - cast out of God's presence. He will forever turn His face from them. Jesus was fully human, yes, but he was always fully GOD and he deliberately quoted Psalm 22:1 in fulfillment of the prophecy. This was to prove to us that He was forsaken by God in our place.
(4) Interestingly, you will note in Young's book that When Mack asks what Jesus accomplished by dying he is told, “Through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world.” God further explains that He is reconciled to “the whole world,” not just the believer (p. 192). The Bible teaches that the world is reconciled to GOD, not the other way around, this is no small difference (Rom.5:10, 2 Cor.5:20 1 Cor. 1:21).
I hope that this is helpful to you, brother. God bless you.
@Utopiang Yet in, 'The Shack,' Papa explains to Mack, multiple times that Christ will live in Him and dwell with him. That IS THE SHACK, as a metaphor. The very meaning of The Shack is Young's acceptance that God, through the work of Christ on the cross - can now live and dwell with us. And since Young also explains that we can not judge God - this contradicts your accusation that Young believes that God had to atone to us - since this is exactly what you are saying in your reconcilation point
@Utopiang So you think that The Father can not see the Sheol? That contradicts other Psalms of David who says that the Father will not help him in the Sheol, but can see and hear him. Psalms 22 is not a prophecy of declaring the 3rd century trinitarian view. Psalms was exactly what Christ saw and felt. Christ, in his agony, did not footnote the right time and place to "quote psalms 22." He lived it. David saw it... a seer, an oracle of YHWH .. he wrote it down.
@Utopiang That's an interesting story you've made "sky darkness = face turned away" .. but it's an invention. An interesting one, full of imagination, but an invention nonetheless. Isaiah never states that Christ was abandoned, nor does Peter. Have you considered that Moses and Enoch were never declared sinless, yet they were in His Sight. Have you considered that Satan, full of sin, goes to His Throne and within His Sight daily. Habakkuk when cited in context, does not contradict this
@Utopiang &ou believe that God is in a separate realm called Heaven & not also on Earth? Doesn't the bible say different. The bible tells us in more than 2 witnesses that God The Father is in all. This does not mean that His Holy Breath fills every vessel. At the cross, Christ did not feel The Holy Breath of God - indwelling his tent. The Bible does not state that The Father actually left Christ - but that Christ could not feel God - otherwise, David would contradict himself in multiple Psalms
...in Parables as well. I do not see in the way that you describe it. In fact that is something that I did not focus on at all. The readers that believe in God have a resposibility to only go so far with taking God outside the box.
Does any one human on this Forum know what God looks like? NO! In this fiction novel, God appears as an African American woman, Can anyone say METAPHOR??!! This story is not meant to be FACT. Wake up now! Remember, This is Fiction!!! Not non-Fiction.
Hi SoldierofA, by portraying God in such an irreverent way, Young has reduced the majesty and glory of God which believers are rightly in reverential awe of. The concern about the depiction of God is not about gender or race, it is about making God into the image of man which He forbids (1 Romans 21-23, 25). Young has also spoken for God which God hates (Jer. 23:31). By portraying God and putting words into His mouth which contradict Scripture, Young has blasphemed God and sinned against Him.
Unless you are willing to concede that Young's fictional caricatures of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are entirely fictional, then it it true to say that Young is representing God through the story.
The tale may be fiction but the theology he is teaching, at least in Young's mind, is a true representation of the heart and mind of the triune God. Tragically, Young's beliefs are proven to be in error by God's autobiography of Himself (the Scriptures). Young needs our prayers, not accolades.
I hope that you're right about this man Utopiang, I really do. I have read some of your comments on You Tube and I must say I was concerned with your words. Use caution in not repeating the mistakes of the Pharisees and the Scribes. Sticking to human tradition through the Old Testament for the sake of tradition. Ask yourself what this man is trying to do? Is he trying to help or hurt? You say he is in the wrong, I say otherwise. You cannot take things so literally as people often speak...
@Utopiang There are probably nearly a billion Christians walking around with a convoluted, human-centered notion of what the Triune Godhead is. Yet, in his fictional story about a guy seeing things in a non-corporeal reality... Mr.Young makes a great story about a Holy God who is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient .. and yet accepts limitations (as a metaphor for the suffering of Christ and the Father). This God is no less powerful or Holy, but is perfect and perfectly compassionate.
I agree, KeyboardPacifist, but it becomes dangerous when people take the secret things of God (Deuteronomy 29:29) and make definite statements about them. I lovingly encourage you to study the truth about the book because whilst it may seem benign at face value, it is filled with subtle heresies which change the way people understand God. For instance, in the book Paul Young claims that the suicide of a pagan princess was the same as Christ's death on the cross. Think about this carefully.
@Utopiang Yeah. I know what you mean.. and I didn't think he implied that Christ did the same. It rubbed me wrong in a sense & perhaps that was The Ruach haKodesh speaking to me... but at the same time, I felt like it was a story intended to break through the child's misgivings.. and see that Christ gave himself to be killed - for completely self-less reasons. He did it for us. I do wish that Mr.Young wouldve condemned the act of the princess and the false "gods" behind the tale
Possibly but this is a quote from Young's book on page 31:
"So is Jesus dying a legend?" she asks. "No honey, that’s a true story; and do you know what? I think the Indian princess story is probably true too," her daddy answers back. At the end of the exchange, At the end of the exchange, we hear Mack summing up the discussion by stating, "Jesus chose to die because he and his daddy love you and me and everyone in the world. He saved us from our sickness, JUST LIKE THE PRINCESS."
@Utopiang You can't seriously think that Mr.Young actually believes that God is white, black, brown, or that he means to express God as a person of any nationality or culture? It's a fictional story (which - itself) takes place OUT of time and reality. Have you read the book? The ending lets us know that it does NOT take place on our own World. Now are you willing to condemn all the the long-haired cocaine/Harley-Davidson Jesus pictures and paintings ? And the crucifixes?
No, I do not believe that but that is not the issue. The only time God is ever described as having a hand or being bird or any other metaphor, is when He Himself does so. No man in Scripture ever dared do so and yet Paul Young has no regard for this holy right for God alone. It is fictional, yes, but it is also theological (teaching about God) and since it is so muddled and mixed with Eastern mysticism, it changes people's ideas about God and makes them different to His Word. Icons are sinful.
When Jesus was on trial He did not try to win the argument by constantly arguing back- His silence said far more about His character and being- He is our example- Love your enemies He said- not continue arguing until you are blue in the face. Perhaps the silence of Jesus should be our example here.
@pianohbc Have you bothered to try to understand what the allegorical "Great Suffering" was all about ? ....... Did you immediately say "what fat black woman as YHWH? Crazy!" Relax. The book is not God on trial. The book describes 11 years of healing for Mr.Young - wrapped up in a fictional story about a fictional man's weekend taking place outside time-space, outside our world. The events are not cross-examination -but "mac's" surrender to an all-loving God.
@pianohbc - Are you kidding? Have you ever read the Bible? Do the words "Wolves", "White-washed tombs" and "the offspring of vipers" ring any bells with you? Have you never read II Peter or Jude or the strident way Paul speaks about the false teachers who had polluted the churches at Galatia? The appalling ignorance of today's professing Christians concerning their duty to defend the faith is beyond belief - Is.56:10.
Serial bullies harbour a lot of internal aggression which they direct at others.
This may include projection, false criticism and patronising sarcasm whilst contributing nothing of any value. It may also include a common tactic of "a number of people have emailed me backchannel to agree with me". This is standard bully-speak which I've experienced on several forums. (Urban75 - Cyberbullying)
He/she is a known cyber troll/bully on YouTube and he will come after you with a vengeance if you disagree with him on any subject. Go to the website Urban75 and look up the article "Dealing with Cyber Bullies". The article explains what these people do, how they think and how to deal with them.
After 4 months of harassment and abuse, my wife Utopiang learned to avoid ele12957 even when he lies about her. Difficult but wise.
As I said- what has happened between you and them would not stop me discussing Scripture with you but you are weighing my knowledge of Scripture on the fact that I have them as friends therefore as I said it is not in your best interest or mine to continue talking on this heresy
As I said before you dont know me - but the fact thatyou have hurt two of my friends on YT worries me. Whilst I would not cause that to stop me wanting to discuss relevant Scripture with you I feel you are not really interested in learning the truth- just defending this heresy so I will discontinue this conversation
Then please explain where you think He did so and dont assume that I dont know Scripture and use phrases such as " try doing a little study,," and " Christians like you" what does that mean? You dont know me and your comments sound full of pride- I am well aware of your ability to cause hurt on YT
Jesus never referred to His father in the feminine. reading this book will not help you understand God the Father in fact it detracts- only Gods Holy Word in Scripture does this and please dont assume that I dont know my Bible or that I dont understand the love of God- it is that which keeps me from heresy
No- I said that His holiness is INTEGRAL to His Loving being - not an alternative - This book lowers the character of God to a female- one of the goals of the new age movement in restoring goddess worship- just one of its heresies. This video is presenting the reasons why this book is dangerous
Reading these comments highlights eactly the problem that this book and other heresy brings- people focus on the love of God over and above His Holiness and His truth which are integral to His loving being- a discerning Christian will drop this book in an instant
@pianohbc the 3rd caller on this video is the epitome of the close-minded racists of those who "join the church club" of American Prostestantism. This caller was outraged that YHWH would be portrayed as a "fat black woman" yet probably has a library full of videos of "white Jesus" & postcards, pictures, t-shirts & a painting of "white jesus" on her wall. Hypocrite.
What a counterfeit! Hate & self-centered images of godliness are the epitome of evil. They are the real evil in the world
Utopiang: I don't need someone else to tell me what the book says. I read it myself. I know enough theology to play theology ping pong with you for years. Instead, why not answer a personal question?
Who is it who has angered you so much that you want to send them to hell?
jeheald, I will answer your question with a scripure:
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." (1 Tim 6:3-5)
I think its pretty simple, love God and look after one another. Whether you are the son in the pig pen or the son in the fathers house God is for you.
Which commands are those? Jesus Himself said that the entire Law and Prophets was summed up in two commands: Love God & Love one another.
When you have managed to fulfill those two commands, then feel free to tell everyone else where they are wrong. Until then, do yourself a favor and shut up.
jeheald, this does not mean that we obey only two commands, it means that because regenerate Christians are filled with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit they are ABLE to love God and their neighbour. Therefore, under Christ Christians are gradually conformed and will not desire to covet, steal, murder, take God's name in vain or break the commandments.
This transformation causes Christians to behave in a Christ-like manner which includes exposing false teachers and doctrines which destroy.
Also remember that Jesus expanded the spiritual law by commanding that hating one's brother was the same as murdering him and that even so much as looking at a woman with lust was and act of adultery.
As a new creature in Christ one is able to resist temptation through the power of the Holy Spirit. And when one sins, daily confession renews the mind. Since sin is in remission and is not entirely gone from Christians, one must repent daily and seek to submit entirely to God in Christ's name.
Utopiang, it is my experience after 42 years of being a believer that it is far easier to focus on things like exposing false teachers than to actually fulfill the explicit command of Christ to Love God and one another. What exactly scares you so much about a work of fiction that you waste so much time being an Internet Watchdog? How's that "resisting temptation" working for you?
jeheald, loving my neighbour means warning him/her of danger and reproving those who will not submit to the authority of the Word of God.
I am not sure what you mean by "resisting temptation". In answer to your other question, please feel free to search the internet for an article entitled:
"At the Back of The Shack - A Torrent of Universalism by James B. De Young"
De Young who was a personal friend of Paul Young's for 12 years and is familiar with his dangerous Universalist views.
My brothers and sisters in Christ: Please note that this person, swampratzozzle, is in sedition to the Word of God and is teaching a false gospel:
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." (Romans 16:17)
Wherever you come across the heresies this person teaches, please reprove them with sound doctrine without engaging with him/her. God bless you. Your sister in Christ our Lord.
I tire of the self-appointed doctrine police, especially when they toss around false accusations like new age conspiracy, counterfeit Jesus or heresy to promote fear in people as a way of advancing their own agenda. What many of them dont realize is that research actually shows that more people will buy a book after reading a negative review than they do after reading a positive one. .
William Paul Young denied the penal substitutionary atonement during a recent interview. If you wish to listen the interview in which Young makes the heretical denial, please feel free to look up the following article on the internet:
"More Books and Things... Interview with William Young - ALERT"
(A partial transcript is also available on the same site)
May the Lord God bless you and protect you from wolves in sheep's clothing. In Jesus' precious name. Amen.
Chris Rosebrough of Fighting for the Faith radio has recorded a follow-up to the previous broadcast in which he examined a radio interview in which Paul Young denied the penal substitutionary atonement.
Search the internet for "Fighting for the Faith: A Strong Defense of Penal Substitution"
It is an excellent review based on Young's own words. The interview is played to the listener and it leaves no doubt that he denies the true Gospel of Christ.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I cant stand people like this who are so small minded, they argue pointless points from a basis of never actually reading a book, small minded and scare mongering. This is one of the best books I have ever read! And it all it does is point to a loving amazing god.
I recommend an article by a man who has known the author for many years, James B. De Young. He reveals the truth about William P. Young's commitment to Universal Reconciliation and its doctrines in "The Shack":
For instance, this quote appears in the article:
The universalist creed of 1899 affirmed that there is one God whose nature is love. Young asserts that God cannot act apart from love (p. 102), and that God purposes what he does always as an expression of love (p. 191)
For the full article cut and paste the title "Revisiting The Shack and Universal Reconciliation" into your internet search bar and then either click on "View as HTML" or download it.
Here is the article written by Wayne jacobsen, the editor of the Shack and close friend of Paul Young. This article is found on Young's website.
"Does the book promote universalism?
Some people can find a universalist under every bush. This book flatly states that all roads do not lead to Jesus, while it affirms that Jesus can find his followers wherever they may have wandered into sin or false beliefs. Just because he can find followers ...
universalism doesn't state outright that all roads lead to Christ, it states that all people are justified before God through Christ, no need for repentance and faith, because we are all justified.. I have another word for that... HERESY!
..in the most unlikely places, does not validate those places. I dont know how we could have been clearer, but people will quote portions out of that context and draw a false conclusion. "
I read The Shack very early on and, for me, the core of the story was not the theology. I took the theology more along the lines of dream symbolism, where someone wakes up and understands a core truth even though the particulars of the dream seem a little silly upon later reflection. I found reconciliation with God to be the primary plus of the book even if the literal theology was a bit odd.
I can't imagine using the book as a guide to the Bible any more than I would use Lord of the Rings.
My friend, BTW, read the passage in question. He told me he found the Lord when he practiced witchcraft. When he saw the real power behind it, he suddenly realized that Jesus must be real, too. As it put it, "Does that mean I recommend people get into witchcraft to meet Jesus? Of course not!" God works in the hearts of those who seek after Him. He is the Good Shepherd who goes in search of the lost sheep. I wouldn't lose sleep over this book. Get back to the kingdom work.
Well said saltsister. The ever present tussle between the head and the heart eh? I am so glad that not all see with the head. Human intellect always fails....no matter how "schooled" we think we are. It is the use of the head alone that has the world running from most Christians. Sad..but true.
Just because we didnt put Scriptural addresses with their numbers and colons at every allusion in the story, does not mean that the Bible isnt the key source in virtually every conversation Mack has with God. Scriptural teachings and references appear on almost every page. They are reworded in ways to be relevant to those reading the story, but at every point we sought to be true to the way God has revealed himself in the Bible except for the literary ...
Reading the article will be very helpful for anyone who is confused by all the accusations thrown at the book. Google search windblown media, then click on "is the shack heresy?". Of course, Utopiang, I fully expect you to respond exactly as this article states. It would be so refreshing if I was wrong.
I encourage the readers to research Universalism. Universalists believe all people will be saved and complain against the contrary teaching that people go to hell by posing questions such as:
- "Do you really believe that God is going to lose most of mankind in hell and that only a few are going to be saved?"
- "If most go to hell, doesn't that mean that Satan wins since God only gets a few compared to the majority who are lost?"
These kinds of questions are the wrong ones to ask.
These verses clearly state that not all are saved; in fact, few are. God tells us throughout the Bible not to question why He sets aside some for salvation and others for destruction - it is His Will to show mercy to whomever He chooses:
As I have stated repeatedly, I am not a universalist. I do not believe that all will be saved. I don't know how much clearer I can state that. Young is not stating that either in the Shack. Why do you keep falling back on accusing people of being something they are not simply because they make some very good scriptural points that you have no answers for.
distanthaven, this is the last time I am going to communicate with you.
I do not believe that you are a genuine born again Christian and attempting to reach you with sound doctrine is a pointless endeavour. I do not say this lightly but rather I have prayfully reached this conclusion.
I have examined your fruits according to Matthew 7 and 1 John 4 and have found them to be carnal not spiritual. You do not value or understand God's Word and you vigorously defend heresies.
In light of this, I will now unyoke myself from you.
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" - 2 Corinthians 6:14
After enduring your sinful manipulation regarding past hurts, your insults, accusations and sarcastic put downs over these last few weeks, I trust in this the promise of Christ:
"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." - Romans 8:1
again fellow readers.....please read through and judge for yourselves. The spirit of life or death is very evident if you are remotely interested. Life is always attacked with lies and accusation without cause. It is a shame it comes from our own brothers and sisters. Judgement and accusation are not good fruit, no matter what stance we take on biblical theology. Love is the key folks!!
Think of how some Catholics seek Mary as a type of savior, as the "go between" to Jesus. That is heresy, yet it persists.The shack creates a heresy of the same order. We have a pick and choose your brand of doctrines,which is what the Bible said about those who depart from the faith, & the Gospel in the last days. Most church goers are not grounded in core theology of Who Jesus said He was,what Born Again actually means. Young is misleading & fails to declare the core truth of John 8:58
alright theophilus46....I'll bite. Please list the heresies that are in The Shack that are clearly anti-biblical that are not tossed out because of the books allegorical, non-fiction viewpoint?? I REALLY am curious cause I am truly baffled how anyone reading this book who is NOT tied up by a religious spirit could ever come to that conclusion. I will await your reply.
Hey!! Quit stalking me! :). Hokey Dokey....I will reply, not because I think it will even remotely cause you to reconsider your mindset Utopiang, but rather for the benefit of others reading.
As usual, you unfortunately are missing the context of what is being spoken about here which is what happens when you read anything with a SET mindset. You see only what you want to see. I LOVE this part of the book because it confronts the North American arrogance that causes such blindness.........
It is not my "mindset", distanthaven, it is sound Biblical doctrine. It is you who are ignoring the truth and pursuing a fable.
"The Shack" is not a book to "love" since it contradicts the sacred Word of God. You are, sadly, expending great energy on defending a heresy that threatens to steal the true Gospel from the unsaved. As a pastor, that should be of great concern to you.
But, instead, you berate and demean those who stand by the Lord's Word and who defend it against attack.
I would take your concerns about the shack a little more seriously Utopiang if you were able to put on the table a heresy that is a REAL contradiction to God's word. So far, I have seen nothing but a pharisaical viewpoint from someone who is blind to their own berating and demeaning actions. Let anyone interested simply read the vast majority of your posts and discern for themselves. As for the book....I am still waiting for a real HERESY!
....we think that being "saved" occurs only the way we have seen it done. We think we have this thing manualized and ANYTHING outside of that manual is heresy. The word "christian" was NEVER spoken by Jesus. It was a derogatory name at first and eventually became an accepted term. Agrippa uses it when speaking with Paul, and Peter uses it YEARS later in his letter when it had become more widely used. "Christians" called themselves followers of "the way" based on Jesus' words that He alone..
..was the way, the truth, and the life. To be "CHRISTIAN" does mean to us that we are followers of Jesus....but it was NOT a term He coined. It was a man-made phrase. You conveniently left out a rather important part of page 182 Utopiang when you ignored the rest of that paragragh...
"Those who love me come from every system that exists. They WERE Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious....
...institutions. I have followers who were murderers, and many who were self righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, BUT I DO WANT TO JOIN THEM IN THEIR TRANSFORMATION INTO SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF MY PAPA, INTO MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, INTO MY BELOVED."
hmmm, that sounds like pretty sound "doctrine" to me. Again....CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING FOLKS! A Christian I am, but I won't let myself be offended easily.
Yes, God calls His chosen from from every religion, background, ethnicity etc. but again - not everyone will be saved, only those God has elected.
And, importantly, those who are saved are put to death with Christ and die to their previous life.
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
Again...a convenient omission from your previously quoted page 182 of the shack...
"Does that mean", asked Mack, "that all roads will lead to you?"
"Not at all" smiled Jesus...."most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you".
I don't think any rational person can say that this is stating that all will be saved. All it is stating is that Jesus has the heart of the shepherd that will leave the 99 to find the lost one.
"I dont need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. Its not my purpose to punish it; its my joy to cure it." - p.119-120
If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over. - Leviticus 26:18
God, who is enthroned forever, will hear them and afflict them. - Psalm 55:19
For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." - Hebrews 10:30
Moving right along....addressing Utopiang's next "heresy" in the Shack. Again...without CONTEXT, you can junk just about anything, as many have done with the bible itself. Read the chapter in full, and you will see that Young is broaching the subject of the vastly accepted image of the "tyrannical God" that LOVES to punish. The scene is simply saying that people do not know the true heart of God. His heart is a loving heart first and foremost. Look at it this way....if we know that sin.....
...separates us from God, we are already punished, and WE BRING IT UPON OURSELVES!! We think DISCIPLINE is a bad word, but the root word is DISCIPLE!! Young never said that God doesn't punish...he said that God's purpose is not for the sake of "punishment" in and of itself, but for the sake of sanctification.
"my son, do not despise the chastening of the lord
nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by him,
for whom He loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives" Heb 12:5
...EVERY scripture Utopiang lists here is clearly referring to the proud, unrepentant heart. Those who have,
"trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the spirit of grace." Heb 10:29
That is an entirely different punishment than those who are received sons in the process of being sanctified, and therefore disciplined or discipled. That is what Young is referring to when Papa states, "it's my joy to cure it."
Young publically states that it is his belief that ALL people are saved, not just believers. However, the Word is very clear that there are vessels of mercy and vessels of destruction - not all will be saved but, in fact, many will be lost.
"Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" - Romans 9:21-23
hmmm...is it possible that you are taking something out of context AGAIN utopiang??? Please state exactly where Young says this and we shall put the CONTEXT of what he is saying out there for intelligent people to discern shall we??
Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I dont want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me. (p. 146)
But now having been set free from sin, and become slaves to God. Romans 6:22
SLAVE, n. 1. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no will of his own, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. - American Dictionary of the English Language (Noah Webster 1828)
ok....websters dictionary is one way. Let's look at the original greek translation of "slave" from Strongs concordance in CONTEXT. (there's that word again)
b) one who gives himself up to anothers will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men.
This so-called "heresy" is the most comical. Reading the book in context clearly exposes the entire theme of the book! GOD DESIRES RELATIONSHIP!!! ....
I do not see the difference here between the definition I gave and this one - a slave is one who submits himself to another's will.
There is nothing "comical" about reducing the submission to God from one of a reverent God-fearing to to one of palship.
God desires and requires nothing from us. It is HE and He alone who gives. It is by his mercy that we are saved and regenerated by Christ (not by works). What then can we give to the Lord Almighty?
...Surrendering our lives to God's will and becoming a bondservant, or slave, does not mean we become mindless, distant followers of doctrine, but rather people who do not count our lives as our own, but rather entering into a relationship where we "trust" our master with every facet of our lives. That is personal. In Hebrew law, a man who was sold as a slave would be allowed to go free after six years of service. However, if he loved his master and wanted to stay with his master, he would..
..become a bond-servant. His ear would be pierced to signify a life-long covenant. See Exodus 21_2-6 OR Deuteronomy 15:16-17.
In Psalm 40, David writes, "I waited patiently for the LORD and He heard my cry . . . sacrifice and offering you did not desire but my ears you have pierced . . . " (Psalm 40:1-6) Theologians believe that this reference to piercing his ears refers to the Hebrew tradition to "bore his ear", the practice carried out upon a man becoming a bondservant, where his ear..
..would be bored by pushing an awl through his earlobe and into a door, calculated to impress the servant with the duty of hearing all of his master's orders.
Paul refers to himself as a bond-slave or bond-servant throughout his letters, including in his introduction in the letter to the Romans. It is evident that he has become an bond-servant of his own volition (see Galations 1:10). It is evident in the new testament scriptures that we are invited to a new kind of relationship with...
..YHWH that is a voluntary response to His drawing us to Himself. We are compelled to become bond-slaves not out of obligation but out of gratitude and an awakened desire to give ourselves entirely over to him. Jesus said in John chapter 15, "I no longer call you servants but I have called you friends."
The time for obligatory, detached service for God is over. The years of slavery to sin and to the law are over. We have entered into the new covenant...
... an era in which we may choose, by faith and because of the goodness of our Master, to put our own ear to the wall and declare our devotion to him, entering in to His family as adopted sons and daughters, bondslaves to the Living Loving Creator God.
"By re-turning. By turning back to me. By giving up your ways of power and manipulation and just come back to me." (p. 147)
This is the essence of decisional regeneration, the doctrine that one is born again by making a simple decision to turn to Jesus.
"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." - Romans 9:15-16
Your stating "heresy" yourself in your viewpoints if you want to play that game Utopiang. You are taking a standpoint that has been a topic of debate for centuries and simply deeming your viewpoint to be the right one. How is that not pride? I can easily use scripture to label you a heretic. Your comments are in contradiction to act 2:21 and Romans 10:13 which both state that "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". I do not, however, think you are a heretic, just confused.
The whole world, Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is no the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way. (p. 192)
By drawing men to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, would this not be an unloving display of force by God according to Young?
"For many are called, but few are chosen." - Matthew 22:14
and finally, your reference to page 192 saying "would this not be an unloving display of force by God according to Young?"
..again, you are simply taking a "predestination" stance and labeling anyone who disagrees with you a heretic. Young is simply stating that the work of Christ on the cross opened up the door so that "WHOSOEVER believes in Him, shall not perish, but have eternal life" (you know where that is). You are using Matt. 22:14 to fit your own agenda.
yea I think this book is garbage as well, but I also think the lady in this clip is not handling this the right way. I think she's taking too much out of context and attacking some of the wrong things in order to make her point.
I don't agree with how she interpreted that quote. In the quote Jesus says that "those who love me COME FROM every system that exists. They WERE buddhists, mormons, etc."
Christians are not the only people that God wants to have a relationship with, he wants to draw buddhists and muslims and atheists to him also. People that come to know Christ can come from any background in the world, but the point is that they have found the truth, no matter what they were in the past.
There is no question in my mind that there is going to be a great diversity of backgrounds and ethnicities in eternity. I love the line further down (pg. 182) and not mentioned in this clip (although the quote Ingrid used is not word for word) where Jesus says, "What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you." I am so glad that Jesus regardless of background or ethnicity will endeavor to reach me and share His unconditional love with me so that I could be called one of His!
This is what drives me nuts as a Jesus follower..."Christians" taking a couple of sentences and ripping on the story to make their point without taking into context the "whole" story. Many preachers do this on Sundays. They take a couple of verses that are totally unrelated and out of context to make their point. They don't relate it to the bigger picture of the book that it's found in or how it relates to the whole story of the Bible. They just pick out verses to make "Their" point.
This book "The Shack" talks of the death and resurrection of Christ, the love and grace of God, the fact that He wants nothing but to love us and have a relationship with us. The author wrote a book of fiction to explain to his kids what he went through coming to Christ not a "new Bible". You guys remind me of the deciples when they ran up to Jesus and told him about the people down the hill casting out demons and healing people in His name and wanted to know if He wanted to go and stop them
12 For this is what the LORD says: "I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream; you will nurse and be carried on her arm and dandled on her knees.
This book is classified FICTION for a reason -in my 1st yr at a Baptist college I was judged for teaching sunday school at a different "liberal" denomination. There's a reason y churches crumble under the weight of their dogma.I see nothing wrong in a story that can move ppl toward God. After all - isn't that what parables were all about? I knew Paul Young at a diff college that I went to a yr later - he was a man of God-someone who accepted you and loved you as a person - and didn't judge
ingrid schlueter is also a racist. she just parrotted amy's comment: "God is introduced as this african-american woman". if she wasn't a racist, she would've corrected amy. also, the idea that God reveals Himself through other religions is not heresy. "all truth is God's truth". those religions do contain truths; that's undeniable. the Jesus of the book doesn't say other religions are ways to salvation. they are ways He reveals Himself. in fact, He explicitly says not all roads lead to Him.
the caller named amy is a racist. she said she got to the part where God is a "fat black woman" and it was "horrid". amy, if you're reading this, realize that "fat black women" are created in the image and likeness of God. therefore, God could just as easily manifest Himself as a white man with a beard as He could a "fat black woman" as He could a jewish man. i'm sure you're not a white-hood-wearing, cross-burning white supremacist, but you are a racist nonetheless.
The book makes it clear that there is only one way to the father,Jesus.Jesus was the center of the book.God isn't religon.Man created religon.Jesus steps in to our messed up ideas to bring us to truth. pastors trash the book saying not to have graven images but you will find pictures of a man and call it Jesus.the book is clear that God is nor man nor female but spirit. He campared himself as sheperd,rock,tree. The father with the protical son.comes back to Jesus, bridges and connects to Him.
the trinity is depicted as an african woman, jewish man and a strange lady. The main character has had troubles with his father and "God" chooses to reveal a different side of him/herself than the traditional white bearded and skinned grandpa that we're comfortable with. once you can fit God in a box, hes no longer God. The book "illustrates" one mans somewhat one sided view of who God is. it is not infallible, but there are many good ideas to broaden our understanding in this book.
the book, Christ says that he doesn't 'want to make anyone a Christian' and that he 'isn't a Christian' ... he's trying to say he's not part of that whole man-made system and sub-culture that we've created. He's not about the comfortable talk-radio Christianity that we have in America ... that a word doesn't define anyone as a follower of Christ. Christ never coined the term "Christian", so that's not what following Him is about.
Yes, but you have to consider what the word Christian means. We have this idea that we can be a "Christ follower" as a good buddhist or other nonsense like that. This is Heresy and yet that is exactly what is being said in the Shack.
Read the book and it greatly blessed me. I suspect that many people leaving comments here have not read the book. The position on the clip is accepted in ignorance!
thankyou so much for this. God bless whoever is standing up for truth in these end times.very very few people i might add! who are being persecuted by the church itself.
Because they don't study their Bibles and dig deeper!
William is another wolf in sheep's clothing and Christians are getting devoured by his doctrines.
If you are a born-again Christian examine the book in the light of the Bible(Acts 17:11; 1 Thess 5:21; 2 Timothy 3:13-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 John 4:1-6)
I'm sure all your references are pointing to exactly this book,You be our eyes to know your TRUTH! The SKY is falling run for lives. This is mans greatest corruption standing in Gods shoes and spewing Bible passages to support his own views. Spare the rod?
This book is dope! Ingrid cracks me up! This book was written for the kids of William Paul Young, and when he wrote the book he did not intend to make more then 15 copies. And it is obviously a God thing due to the amount of friction and conversations it has stirred up. Ingrid the reason it is so popular and has been spread to people through word of mouth is because God is shaking the bottle and seeing whats going to happen. Dope
That is pragmatism. You assume because something works that it is from God. Read Ezekiel. In Ezekiel God told the false prophets He would answer their prayers in order to keep them in their deception. I refer you to William Young and his brother's appearance on Paula White Today. They both said that the doctrine of the Trinity meant nothing to them. They would rather it all be about their own personal relationship with Christ. Transaltion? Idolatry.
Excuse me dope, it doesn't matter what his intentions were of writing such unbiblical lies nor WHO he wrote them for.
DO you read your Bible? The end times apostasy will cause GREAT division and deceive the very elect of God if that were possible. Yes, I agree, this kind of thing is God shaking the bottle and purifying the church. The dross will be swept away by these winds of false doctrine.
The Shack appeals to people who are looking for a god created in their own likeness. The danger is much the same as Scientology, Christian Science and the Book of Mormon, all of which redefined biblical terms and principles for the sake of marketing. They caused much division and started major American cults.
@apologiamixer The protestant movement is saturated with re-defined terms. Every major denomination is full of rebellion and full of backbiting against every other denomination. Rebellion causes cults. Books not intended to be scripture... but to heal, are NOT the same as KJV-onlyism, Book of Mormon, etc... The Shack is fiction and is not intended to be anything else. The haters can't empathize with anyone who may need to read The Shack. Sad for you.
Many of the so called "heresies" of this book are not what the ctitics think they are due to lack of reading the whole story or reading with preconceived notions.
HERE is proof that even a wonderful annointed book like " the shack" that emphesizes Gods Love, will be attacked by religious fanatics ! Some of you critics simply need to stop being religous and meet Jesus.
josiahdocscurlock 1 year ago
Here is a video that breaks down the Theology of The Shack:
gci.org/yi/kruger69
This website also has 3 interviews with Paul Young regarding the book.
gci.org/category/people/william-p-young
spaztikification 1 year ago
Please watch my series on the The truth about the Trinity if you want to see tons of scriptures on what the bible teaches us to believe. God bless!
Godlovestruth 1 year ago
Why are people who claim to be such devout Christians so afraid of what someone else might write? Is God that weak, or Jesus that weak, that a book written by a mere mortal is going to endanger Him. I haven't read this book, but I find your concern about it hilarious, to say the least.
boootts 1 year ago
Comment removed
maluafever 1 year ago
I read some of the other reply's given to you by others, and it seems that your Christian views are questionable. I think that you need to examine what you're really doing here and by what purpose you are attacking this book in the manner in which you are.
SoldierofA 2 years ago
SoldierofA, I lovingly encourage you to read my Biblical examination of the penal substitutionary atonement on the following video forum:
watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y
You will find that the Scriptural teaching entirely contradicts Young's statements in "The Shack" (and in his sermons) on the crucifixion. Please feel free to question my contextual exegesis if you wish to. I would welcome your queries. (1)
Utopiang 2 years ago
For instance, Young states the God the Father was on the cross with God the Son (pp. 95) which is the heresy of patripassianism (literally "Father suffered"). Young insists that the Father was in the Son on the cross but he has actually made a fatal error. Yes God was on the cross but it was God the SON, not God the Father. The Father was in Heaven sacrificing His Son for His lost sheep. (2)
Utopiang 2 years ago
The account of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac, represents the atonement. It was Abraham who readied himself to plunge the dagger into his child, no-one else. It was HE who was to kill his son by his own hand at the command of God (Genesis 22:1-19).
We see here the shadow of the sacrifice the God the Father would make for the sins of His sheep when He put His only begotten and beloved Son to death for them. And, like Isaac, Jesus willingly laid down His life. (3)
Utopiang 2 years ago
We know from studying Isaiah 53:4, 10 and 10 that the Father placed iniquity upon Son and then poured His wrath upon Him in our place. We also know from Psalm 22:1, Mark 15:33-35 and Matthew 27:46 that Jesus was rejected by God in our place. Young denies both these imperative tenets in his book and in public. He has made it clear that any God who kills His own Son is not a God he wants anything to do with. Yet, it is the greatest act of love ever known in the history of mankind. (4)
Utopiang 2 years ago
Young's denial of the penal substitutionary atonement can be heard on these two recordings online:
1. "More Books and Things - Interview with William Young - ALERT"
2. "Fighting For the Faith - Review of a Sermon Delivered by Paul Young, Author of the Shack" (5)
I hope that this is helpful to you in understanding my position on "The Shack", SoldierofA. Please feel free to ask me anything on these matters as I am your servant in Christ and I would be glad to answer you. (5)
Utopiang 2 years ago
@Utopiang Read the bible again. 1 Corinthians 5:19 shines Light on the lie that God ever left Christ. Psalms 22:1 is about the mind of Christ while nailed to the cross that day. 1 Corinthians 5:18-20, let us know that God was there in the body of Christ the entire time that the crucifixtion took place. God loves. God sorrows. God was there in Christ..... just as God is all-present.
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
@KeyboardPacifist *2 corinthians 5:18-20
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
@Utopiang We put Christ to death. We unwittingly made Christ the sacrifice and Satan's plan was defeated. God "GAVE" The Only Begotten. God did not take the Life of Christ, but allowed it to be taken. Christ gave himself. We killed him.
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
Hi @KeyboardPacifist, you are right that Christ gave himself willingly, the Word is clear on this. Yes, men killed Jesus (both Romans and Jews). This was ordained by God (Rev. 13:8). The punishment/wrath which redeems men who are dead in their sins came from the Father. GOD the SON was on the cross; GOD the FATHER was in Heaven pouring out the full cup of His wrath upon Christ. The spilling of Christ's blood and His taking the punishment in our place made a way where there was no way before.
Utopiang 1 year ago
@Utopiang Its the reason we can wake up & smile. I think that Mr.Young was just doing his best to serve. That's what we are all here to do. We're not here to bash each other with doctrinal differences. We are friends of The Almighty and we listen to The Voice of God. If Paul is preaching another Gospel, then he needs to be corrected. But your last two posts are The Gospel ! praise God! & that's the same Gospel that Mr.Young preached. The rest of what we do is a vain grasping at the wind
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
(1) Hello again, I would encourage you to visit two websites which thoroughly explain all the problems with William Paul Young's theology in "The Shack". I agree that we are not to "bash each other" but to lovingly guide one another regarding biblical errors which thwart a person's salvation (or effectiveness for Christ ). We must correct the unsaved who do not yet know Him. Brother/sister, Paul Young's book and background reveal that he believes a different gospel, a subtle and seductive one.
Utopiang 1 year ago
(2) Here are the two websites I mentioned. Please remove the brackets when entering the link addresses into your search engine.
w w w(.)spiritual-research-network(.)com/theshack(.)html
w w w(.)fightingforthefaith(.)com/2009/08/review-of-a-sermon-delivered-by-paul-young-author-of-the-shack(.)html
Utopiang 1 year ago
Clarification: "biblical errors" meaning errors in interpretation. The holy Bible is infallible, of course :)
Utopiang 1 year ago
@Utopiang Hmm... I'll check out the websites. No one, despite a good story telling, gets a free pas.. and if he's teaching a soft, self-centered gospel, then I won't condone it. So far, ....Im not fully at ease with what Mr.Young preaches in his views on "liberality" and "legalism" in regards to Torah and Grace. This is, so far, the only thing that I do not agree with him about. I don't think he gets the point of Torah or Holiness. But ... I dont think hes pushing hyperliberalism
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
@KeyboardPacifist, yes, please do, brother. It will open your eyes to grave errors in "The Shack". Young is involved in the Emergent movement and recently promoted the works of Brad Jerzack, an Emergent author. He also credits 2 universalists and a Christian Anarchist in the credits of "The Shack". On His website WindRumors he claims that Jaques Ellul (a Christan anarchist and heretic) as his favourite author of all time. If he is not a committed liberal yet, he is readying himself for it.
Utopiang 1 year ago
@KeyboardPacifist, God bless you richly, brother. I hope to hear from you by PM or meet you in the comment sections again in the future. Peace and love to you and yours in Christ Jesus.
Utopiang 1 year ago
@Utopiang YHWH regretted mankind at the time of Noah. YHWH felt sorrow upon punishing Jerusalem for the census. YHWH so Loved the Kosmos, that God gave Christ to be sacrificed. We love a God who loves us back. God does not have "nerve endings" or simple neuronal structures that produce simple human emotions but God has expressed (through the Prophets) that God feels in a way that we do not understand. 1 Cor 5:18-20. God is omnipresent & was there in the body of Christ. Shalom
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
@KeyboardPacifist 2 Corinthians 5:18-20
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
God experiences a full gamut of emotions. This is shown to us by His anger, sorrow, joy, regret, humour. laughter and the tears Christ wept over Jerusalem and Lazareth. Of course, His emotions are pure and perfect but since we are made in His image, we know that He expresses the same emotions. Yes, God is loving but He is also wrathful, vengeful, jealous, compassionate, kind and above all HOLY. Whilst there is one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 distinct persons in perfect union.
Utopiang 1 year ago
@Utopiang All that you said is true. Yet that does not exclude YHWH from being present in all parts of the universe (as David tells us) & also present in Christ at the Crucifixtion. We are talking about the Omnipresence of God, not "sin unpresentable before the Throne." God is Holy. God was/is well-pleased with & In His Only Begotten.
Mr.Youngs point was an apologetic approach to people who reject God based on their notion of "the separation" that Christ felt. It was his MOST human moment
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
(1) Brother, let us go to the scriptures together (2 Corinthians 5:19):
"...that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation."
This verse states that "in Christ God was". Jesus was God the SON in human form and therefore God was in Him. He is the second person of the trinity. God the Father was not in Christ but was in Heaven pouring out His wrath upon Him.
Utopiang 1 year ago
(2) When the sky turned to utter darkness this was when the Father turned His face away from Christ. This was when the Father placed sin upon His beloved and blameless Son (see Isaiah 53:6, 1 Pet. 2:24 and Habakkuk 1:13). Christ, abandoned during this time, called out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46). Once the wrath of God had been completely poured out, Jesus declared "It is finished" and the Father returned to His Son to receive His spirit (Luke 23:46).
Utopiang 1 year ago
(3) Christ was rejected by the Father in the same way that the unredeemed will be abandoned when they are judged after death - cast out of God's presence. He will forever turn His face from them. Jesus was fully human, yes, but he was always fully GOD and he deliberately quoted Psalm 22:1 in fulfillment of the prophecy. This was to prove to us that He was forsaken by God in our place.
Utopiang 1 year ago
(4) Interestingly, you will note in Young's book that When Mack asks what Jesus accomplished by dying he is told, “Through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world.” God further explains that He is reconciled to “the whole world,” not just the believer (p. 192). The Bible teaches that the world is reconciled to GOD, not the other way around, this is no small difference (Rom.5:10, 2 Cor.5:20 1 Cor. 1:21).
I hope that this is helpful to you, brother. God bless you.
Utopiang 1 year ago
@Utopiang Yet in, 'The Shack,' Papa explains to Mack, multiple times that Christ will live in Him and dwell with him. That IS THE SHACK, as a metaphor. The very meaning of The Shack is Young's acceptance that God, through the work of Christ on the cross - can now live and dwell with us. And since Young also explains that we can not judge God - this contradicts your accusation that Young believes that God had to atone to us - since this is exactly what you are saying in your reconcilation point
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
@Utopiang So you think that The Father can not see the Sheol? That contradicts other Psalms of David who says that the Father will not help him in the Sheol, but can see and hear him. Psalms 22 is not a prophecy of declaring the 3rd century trinitarian view. Psalms was exactly what Christ saw and felt. Christ, in his agony, did not footnote the right time and place to "quote psalms 22." He lived it. David saw it... a seer, an oracle of YHWH .. he wrote it down.
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
@Utopiang That's an interesting story you've made "sky darkness = face turned away" .. but it's an invention. An interesting one, full of imagination, but an invention nonetheless. Isaiah never states that Christ was abandoned, nor does Peter. Have you considered that Moses and Enoch were never declared sinless, yet they were in His Sight. Have you considered that Satan, full of sin, goes to His Throne and within His Sight daily. Habakkuk when cited in context, does not contradict this
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
@Utopiang &ou believe that God is in a separate realm called Heaven & not also on Earth? Doesn't the bible say different. The bible tells us in more than 2 witnesses that God The Father is in all. This does not mean that His Holy Breath fills every vessel. At the cross, Christ did not feel The Holy Breath of God - indwelling his tent. The Bible does not state that The Father actually left Christ - but that Christ could not feel God - otherwise, David would contradict himself in multiple Psalms
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
...in Parables as well. I do not see in the way that you describe it. In fact that is something that I did not focus on at all. The readers that believe in God have a resposibility to only go so far with taking God outside the box.
SoldierofA 2 years ago
Does any one human on this Forum know what God looks like? NO! In this fiction novel, God appears as an African American woman, Can anyone say METAPHOR??!! This story is not meant to be FACT. Wake up now! Remember, This is Fiction!!! Not non-Fiction.
SoldierofA 2 years ago
Hi SoldierofA, by portraying God in such an irreverent way, Young has reduced the majesty and glory of God which believers are rightly in reverential awe of. The concern about the depiction of God is not about gender or race, it is about making God into the image of man which He forbids (1 Romans 21-23, 25). Young has also spoken for God which God hates (Jer. 23:31). By portraying God and putting words into His mouth which contradict Scripture, Young has blasphemed God and sinned against Him.
Utopiang 2 years ago
Unless you are willing to concede that Young's fictional caricatures of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are entirely fictional, then it it true to say that Young is representing God through the story.
The tale may be fiction but the theology he is teaching, at least in Young's mind, is a true representation of the heart and mind of the triune God. Tragically, Young's beliefs are proven to be in error by God's autobiography of Himself (the Scriptures). Young needs our prayers, not accolades.
Utopiang 2 years ago
I hope that you're right about this man Utopiang, I really do. I have read some of your comments on You Tube and I must say I was concerned with your words. Use caution in not repeating the mistakes of the Pharisees and the Scribes. Sticking to human tradition through the Old Testament for the sake of tradition. Ask yourself what this man is trying to do? Is he trying to help or hurt? You say he is in the wrong, I say otherwise. You cannot take things so literally as people often speak...
SoldierofA 2 years ago
@Utopiang There are probably nearly a billion Christians walking around with a convoluted, human-centered notion of what the Triune Godhead is. Yet, in his fictional story about a guy seeing things in a non-corporeal reality... Mr.Young makes a great story about a Holy God who is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient .. and yet accepts limitations (as a metaphor for the suffering of Christ and the Father). This God is no less powerful or Holy, but is perfect and perfectly compassionate.
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
I agree, KeyboardPacifist, but it becomes dangerous when people take the secret things of God (Deuteronomy 29:29) and make definite statements about them. I lovingly encourage you to study the truth about the book because whilst it may seem benign at face value, it is filled with subtle heresies which change the way people understand God. For instance, in the book Paul Young claims that the suicide of a pagan princess was the same as Christ's death on the cross. Think about this carefully.
Utopiang 1 year ago
@Utopiang Yeah. I know what you mean.. and I didn't think he implied that Christ did the same. It rubbed me wrong in a sense & perhaps that was The Ruach haKodesh speaking to me... but at the same time, I felt like it was a story intended to break through the child's misgivings.. and see that Christ gave himself to be killed - for completely self-less reasons. He did it for us. I do wish that Mr.Young wouldve condemned the act of the princess and the false "gods" behind the tale
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
Possibly but this is a quote from Young's book on page 31:
"So is Jesus dying a legend?" she asks. "No honey, that’s a true story; and do you know what? I think the Indian princess story is probably true too," her daddy answers back. At the end of the exchange, At the end of the exchange, we hear Mack summing up the discussion by stating, "Jesus chose to die because he and his daddy love you and me and everyone in the world. He saved us from our sickness, JUST LIKE THE PRINCESS."
NOT true.
Utopiang 1 year ago
@Utopiang You can't seriously think that Mr.Young actually believes that God is white, black, brown, or that he means to express God as a person of any nationality or culture? It's a fictional story (which - itself) takes place OUT of time and reality. Have you read the book? The ending lets us know that it does NOT take place on our own World. Now are you willing to condemn all the the long-haired cocaine/Harley-Davidson Jesus pictures and paintings ? And the crucifixes?
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
No, I do not believe that but that is not the issue. The only time God is ever described as having a hand or being bird or any other metaphor, is when He Himself does so. No man in Scripture ever dared do so and yet Paul Young has no regard for this holy right for God alone. It is fictional, yes, but it is also theological (teaching about God) and since it is so muddled and mixed with Eastern mysticism, it changes people's ideas about God and makes them different to His Word. Icons are sinful.
Utopiang 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here is what is presented in The Shack
Mack who is saved is mad at God
God invites Mack to bring his hurts to him and wants to heal the wounds that are holding Mack back from enjoying Gods love completely.
The main point of the story is that God loves us (those whom accepted the Gift of the Cross)
and wants to heal our hurts.
For that reason alone, read the book
SCJohnWIl 2 years ago
When Jesus was on trial He did not try to win the argument by constantly arguing back- His silence said far more about His character and being- He is our example- Love your enemies He said- not continue arguing until you are blue in the face. Perhaps the silence of Jesus should be our example here.
pianohbc 2 years ago 7
@pianohbc Have you bothered to try to understand what the allegorical "Great Suffering" was all about ? ....... Did you immediately say "what fat black woman as YHWH? Crazy!" Relax. The book is not God on trial. The book describes 11 years of healing for Mr.Young - wrapped up in a fictional story about a fictional man's weekend taking place outside time-space, outside our world. The events are not cross-examination -but "mac's" surrender to an all-loving God.
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
@pianohbc - Are you kidding? Have you ever read the Bible? Do the words "Wolves", "White-washed tombs" and "the offspring of vipers" ring any bells with you? Have you never read II Peter or Jude or the strident way Paul speaks about the false teachers who had polluted the churches at Galatia? The appalling ignorance of today's professing Christians concerning their duty to defend the faith is beyond belief - Is.56:10.
tumbleweeeeeed 4 months ago
RE: ele12957's comments
Serial bullies harbour a lot of internal aggression which they direct at others.
This may include projection, false criticism and patronising sarcasm whilst contributing nothing of any value. It may also include a common tactic of "a number of people have emailed me backchannel to agree with me". This is standard bully-speak which I've experienced on several forums. (Urban75 - Cyberbullying)
NotIButChristWithin 2 years ago 5
Watch this warning video about ele12957:
watch?v=-GGW3VAuEp4
He/she is a known cyber troll/bully on YouTube and he will come after you with a vengeance if you disagree with him on any subject. Go to the website Urban75 and look up the article "Dealing with Cyber Bullies". The article explains what these people do, how they think and how to deal with them.
After 4 months of harassment and abuse, my wife Utopiang learned to avoid ele12957 even when he lies about her. Difficult but wise.
NotIButChristWithin 2 years ago 5
As I said- what has happened between you and them would not stop me discussing Scripture with you but you are weighing my knowledge of Scripture on the fact that I have them as friends therefore as I said it is not in your best interest or mine to continue talking on this heresy
pianohbc 2 years ago 7
As I said before you dont know me - but the fact thatyou have hurt two of my friends on YT worries me. Whilst I would not cause that to stop me wanting to discuss relevant Scripture with you I feel you are not really interested in learning the truth- just defending this heresy so I will discontinue this conversation
pianohbc 2 years ago 4
Then please explain where you think He did so and dont assume that I dont know Scripture and use phrases such as " try doing a little study,," and " Christians like you" what does that mean? You dont know me and your comments sound full of pride- I am well aware of your ability to cause hurt on YT
pianohbc 2 years ago 4
Jesus never referred to His father in the feminine. reading this book will not help you understand God the Father in fact it detracts- only Gods Holy Word in Scripture does this and please dont assume that I dont know my Bible or that I dont understand the love of God- it is that which keeps me from heresy
pianohbc 2 years ago 4
No- I said that His holiness is INTEGRAL to His Loving being - not an alternative - This book lowers the character of God to a female- one of the goals of the new age movement in restoring goddess worship- just one of its heresies. This video is presenting the reasons why this book is dangerous
pianohbc 2 years ago 4
I think you need to read my comment again as you have not understood it
pianohbc 2 years ago 2
lady you have entirly to much time on your hands you have not even read the book but you are gonna call it heresy? you hypocrite!!
kevinswanson2000 2 years ago
Reading these comments highlights eactly the problem that this book and other heresy brings- people focus on the love of God over and above His Holiness and His truth which are integral to His loving being- a discerning Christian will drop this book in an instant
pianohbc 2 years ago 12
Very well said pianohbc!
Soldier7of7Christ 2 years ago 4
Thank you and bless you
pianohbc 2 years ago 2
@pianohbc the 3rd caller on this video is the epitome of the close-minded racists of those who "join the church club" of American Prostestantism. This caller was outraged that YHWH would be portrayed as a "fat black woman" yet probably has a library full of videos of "white Jesus" & postcards, pictures, t-shirts & a painting of "white jesus" on her wall. Hypocrite.
What a counterfeit! Hate & self-centered images of godliness are the epitome of evil. They are the real evil in the world
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
Utopiang: I don't need someone else to tell me what the book says. I read it myself. I know enough theology to play theology ping pong with you for years. Instead, why not answer a personal question?
Who is it who has angered you so much that you want to send them to hell?
jeheald 2 years ago
jeheald, I will answer your question with a scripure:
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." (1 Tim 6:3-5)
Utopiang 2 years ago
I think its pretty simple, love God and look after one another. Whether you are the son in the pig pen or the son in the fathers house God is for you.
nebauer101 2 years ago
Indeed, nebauer101, but we must also obey his commands (John 14:15) and do His will (Matthew 7:21).
Praise God, all lost sinners are welcomed in the father's house upon receiving Godly repentance and salvation through Christ Jesus, the Saviour:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)
Utopiang 2 years ago
"...but we must obey his commands"?
Which commands are those? Jesus Himself said that the entire Law and Prophets was summed up in two commands: Love God & Love one another.
When you have managed to fulfill those two commands, then feel free to tell everyone else where they are wrong. Until then, do yourself a favor and shut up.
jeheald 2 years ago
jeheald, this does not mean that we obey only two commands, it means that because regenerate Christians are filled with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit they are ABLE to love God and their neighbour. Therefore, under Christ Christians are gradually conformed and will not desire to covet, steal, murder, take God's name in vain or break the commandments.
This transformation causes Christians to behave in a Christ-like manner which includes exposing false teachers and doctrines which destroy.
Utopiang 2 years ago
Also remember that Jesus expanded the spiritual law by commanding that hating one's brother was the same as murdering him and that even so much as looking at a woman with lust was and act of adultery.
As a new creature in Christ one is able to resist temptation through the power of the Holy Spirit. And when one sins, daily confession renews the mind. Since sin is in remission and is not entirely gone from Christians, one must repent daily and seek to submit entirely to God in Christ's name.
Utopiang 2 years ago
Utopiang, it is my experience after 42 years of being a believer that it is far easier to focus on things like exposing false teachers than to actually fulfill the explicit command of Christ to Love God and one another. What exactly scares you so much about a work of fiction that you waste so much time being an Internet Watchdog? How's that "resisting temptation" working for you?
jeheald 2 years ago
jeheald, loving my neighbour means warning him/her of danger and reproving those who will not submit to the authority of the Word of God.
I am not sure what you mean by "resisting temptation". In answer to your other question, please feel free to search the internet for an article entitled:
"At the Back of The Shack - A Torrent of Universalism by James B. De Young"
De Young who was a personal friend of Paul Young's for 12 years and is familiar with his dangerous Universalist views.
Utopiang 2 years ago
My brothers and sisters in Christ: Please note that this person, swampratzozzle, is in sedition to the Word of God and is teaching a false gospel:
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." (Romans 16:17)
Wherever you come across the heresies this person teaches, please reprove them with sound doctrine without engaging with him/her. God bless you. Your sister in Christ our Lord.
Utopiang 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For a reference to this sedition please feel free to cut and paste this video code into the YouTube search bar:
watch?v=kZWaF57eIIg
Utopiang 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I tire of the self-appointed doctrine police, especially when they toss around false accusations like new age conspiracy, counterfeit Jesus or heresy to promote fear in people as a way of advancing their own agenda. What many of them dont realize is that research actually shows that more people will buy a book after reading a negative review than they do after reading a positive one. .
Is The Shack Heresy?
By Wayne Jacobsen
ele12957 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear Christians,
William Paul Young denied the penal substitutionary atonement during a recent interview. If you wish to listen the interview in which Young makes the heretical denial, please feel free to look up the following article on the internet:
"More Books and Things... Interview with William Young - ALERT"
(A partial transcript is also available on the same site)
May the Lord God bless you and protect you from wolves in sheep's clothing. In Jesus' precious name. Amen.
Utopiang 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My fellow Christians:
Chris Rosebrough of Fighting for the Faith radio has recorded a follow-up to the previous broadcast in which he examined a radio interview in which Paul Young denied the penal substitutionary atonement.
Search the internet for "Fighting for the Faith: A Strong Defense of Penal Substitution"
It is an excellent review based on Young's own words. The interview is played to the listener and it leaves no doubt that he denies the true Gospel of Christ.
God bless you.
Utopiang 2 years ago
ATTENTION CHRISTIANS:
On a recent radio interview the author of "The Shack" William P. Young publically denied the substitutionary atonement.
To find the interview type the following title into your internet search bar:
"Fighting for the Faith: William Young, Author of The Shack, Outright Denies the Penal Substitutionary Atonement"
Young's own words confirm that the heresies faithful Bible-believing Christians have been warning people about are true.
Utopiang 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I cant stand people like this who are so small minded, they argue pointless points from a basis of never actually reading a book, small minded and scare mongering. This is one of the best books I have ever read! And it all it does is point to a loving amazing god.
coatesy123 2 years ago
Hi coatesy123, what makes you think that the speakers have not read The Shack?
Utopiang 2 years ago
I recommend an article by a man who has known the author for many years, James B. De Young. He reveals the truth about William P. Young's commitment to Universal Reconciliation and its doctrines in "The Shack":
For instance, this quote appears in the article:
The universalist creed of 1899 affirmed that there is one God whose nature is love. Young asserts that God cannot act apart from love (p. 102), and that God purposes what he does always as an expression of love (p. 191)
Utopiang 3 years ago
For the full article cut and paste the title "Revisiting The Shack and Universal Reconciliation" into your internet search bar and then either click on "View as HTML" or download it.
Utopiang 3 years ago
Here is the article written by Wayne jacobsen, the editor of the Shack and close friend of Paul Young. This article is found on Young's website.
"Does the book promote universalism?
Some people can find a universalist under every bush. This book flatly states that all roads do not lead to Jesus, while it affirms that Jesus can find his followers wherever they may have wandered into sin or false beliefs. Just because he can find followers ...
distanthaven24 3 years ago
universalism doesn't state outright that all roads lead to Christ, it states that all people are justified before God through Christ, no need for repentance and faith, because we are all justified.. I have another word for that... HERESY!
jc4life316 2 years ago 6
I agree. I have read the book and it isn't even remotely universalist.
swampratzozzle 2 years ago
..in the most unlikely places, does not validate those places. I dont know how we could have been clearer, but people will quote portions out of that context and draw a false conclusion. "
distanthaven24 3 years ago
I read The Shack very early on and, for me, the core of the story was not the theology. I took the theology more along the lines of dream symbolism, where someone wakes up and understands a core truth even though the particulars of the dream seem a little silly upon later reflection. I found reconciliation with God to be the primary plus of the book even if the literal theology was a bit odd.
I can't imagine using the book as a guide to the Bible any more than I would use Lord of the Rings.
saltsister 2 years ago
My friend, BTW, read the passage in question. He told me he found the Lord when he practiced witchcraft. When he saw the real power behind it, he suddenly realized that Jesus must be real, too. As it put it, "Does that mean I recommend people get into witchcraft to meet Jesus? Of course not!" God works in the hearts of those who seek after Him. He is the Good Shepherd who goes in search of the lost sheep. I wouldn't lose sleep over this book. Get back to the kingdom work.
saltsister 2 years ago
Well said saltsister. The ever present tussle between the head and the heart eh? I am so glad that not all see with the head. Human intellect always fails....no matter how "schooled" we think we are. It is the use of the head alone that has the world running from most Christians. Sad..but true.
distanthaven24 2 years ago
Does it devalue Scripture?
Just because we didnt put Scriptural addresses with their numbers and colons at every allusion in the story, does not mean that the Bible isnt the key source in virtually every conversation Mack has with God. Scriptural teachings and references appear on almost every page. They are reworded in ways to be relevant to those reading the story, but at every point we sought to be true to the way God has revealed himself in the Bible except for the literary ...
distanthaven24 3 years ago
... characterizations that move the story forward. At its core the book is one long Bible study as Mack seeks to resolve his anger at God.
distanthaven24 3 years ago
Reading the article will be very helpful for anyone who is confused by all the accusations thrown at the book. Google search windblown media, then click on "is the shack heresy?". Of course, Utopiang, I fully expect you to respond exactly as this article states. It would be so refreshing if I was wrong.
distanthaven24 3 years ago
I encourage the readers to research Universalism. Universalists believe all people will be saved and complain against the contrary teaching that people go to hell by posing questions such as:
- "Do you really believe that God is going to lose most of mankind in hell and that only a few are going to be saved?"
- "If most go to hell, doesn't that mean that Satan wins since God only gets a few compared to the majority who are lost?"
These kinds of questions are the wrong ones to ask.
Utopiang 3 years ago
What Universalists are are doing is using emotionalism to sway someone's beliefs. What they should be asking are questions like these:
- "What does the Bible teach about damnation?"
- "Does the Bible tell us if most will be lost or saved?"
- "Does it tell us that all will be saved?"
Are there scriptures in the Bible that plainly state that not all are saved?
Utopiang 3 years ago
Yes, there are:
- Matthew 7:13-14
- Matthew 22:14
- Luke 13:22-27
- Romans 9:27
These verses clearly state that not all are saved; in fact, few are. God tells us throughout the Bible not to question why He sets aside some for salvation and others for destruction - it is His Will to show mercy to whomever He chooses:
- Romans 9:21-23
- Malachi 1:3
- Romans 9:13
Utopiang 3 years ago
As I have stated repeatedly, I am not a universalist. I do not believe that all will be saved. I don't know how much clearer I can state that. Young is not stating that either in the Shack. Why do you keep falling back on accusing people of being something they are not simply because they make some very good scriptural points that you have no answers for.
distanthaven24 3 years ago
This has also been my experience with utopiang. They just ignore Scriptures that challenge their viewpoint, and change the subject.
swampratzozzle 2 years ago
distanthaven, this is the last time I am going to communicate with you.
I do not believe that you are a genuine born again Christian and attempting to reach you with sound doctrine is a pointless endeavour. I do not say this lightly but rather I have prayfully reached this conclusion.
I have examined your fruits according to Matthew 7 and 1 John 4 and have found them to be carnal not spiritual. You do not value or understand God's Word and you vigorously defend heresies.
Utopiang 3 years ago
In light of this, I will now unyoke myself from you.
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" - 2 Corinthians 6:14
After enduring your sinful manipulation regarding past hurts, your insults, accusations and sarcastic put downs over these last few weeks, I trust in this the promise of Christ:
"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." - Romans 8:1
Utopiang 3 years ago
again fellow readers.....please read through and judge for yourselves. The spirit of life or death is very evident if you are remotely interested. Life is always attacked with lies and accusation without cause. It is a shame it comes from our own brothers and sisters. Judgement and accusation are not good fruit, no matter what stance we take on biblical theology. Love is the key folks!!
distanthaven24 3 years ago
Comment removed
theophilus46 3 years ago
Think of how some Catholics seek Mary as a type of savior, as the "go between" to Jesus. That is heresy, yet it persists.The shack creates a heresy of the same order. We have a pick and choose your brand of doctrines,which is what the Bible said about those who depart from the faith, & the Gospel in the last days. Most church goers are not grounded in core theology of Who Jesus said He was,what Born Again actually means. Young is misleading & fails to declare the core truth of John 8:58
theophilus46 3 years ago
alright theophilus46....I'll bite. Please list the heresies that are in The Shack that are clearly anti-biblical that are not tossed out because of the books allegorical, non-fiction viewpoint?? I REALLY am curious cause I am truly baffled how anyone reading this book who is NOT tied up by a religious spirit could ever come to that conclusion. I will await your reply.
distanthaven24 3 years ago
"those who love me come from every system... I have no desire to make them Christian" p.182
Definition of a Christian:
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
Utopiang 3 years ago
Hey!! Quit stalking me! :). Hokey Dokey....I will reply, not because I think it will even remotely cause you to reconsider your mindset Utopiang, but rather for the benefit of others reading.
As usual, you unfortunately are missing the context of what is being spoken about here which is what happens when you read anything with a SET mindset. You see only what you want to see. I LOVE this part of the book because it confronts the North American arrogance that causes such blindness.........
distanthaven24 3 years ago
It is not my "mindset", distanthaven, it is sound Biblical doctrine. It is you who are ignoring the truth and pursuing a fable.
"The Shack" is not a book to "love" since it contradicts the sacred Word of God. You are, sadly, expending great energy on defending a heresy that threatens to steal the true Gospel from the unsaved. As a pastor, that should be of great concern to you.
But, instead, you berate and demean those who stand by the Lord's Word and who defend it against attack.
Utopiang 3 years ago
I would take your concerns about the shack a little more seriously Utopiang if you were able to put on the table a heresy that is a REAL contradiction to God's word. So far, I have seen nothing but a pharisaical viewpoint from someone who is blind to their own berating and demeaning actions. Let anyone interested simply read the vast majority of your posts and discern for themselves. As for the book....I am still waiting for a real HERESY!
distanthaven24 3 years ago
....we think that being "saved" occurs only the way we have seen it done. We think we have this thing manualized and ANYTHING outside of that manual is heresy. The word "christian" was NEVER spoken by Jesus. It was a derogatory name at first and eventually became an accepted term. Agrippa uses it when speaking with Paul, and Peter uses it YEARS later in his letter when it had become more widely used. "Christians" called themselves followers of "the way" based on Jesus' words that He alone..
distanthaven24 3 years ago
..was the way, the truth, and the life. To be "CHRISTIAN" does mean to us that we are followers of Jesus....but it was NOT a term He coined. It was a man-made phrase. You conveniently left out a rather important part of page 182 Utopiang when you ignored the rest of that paragragh...
"Those who love me come from every system that exists. They WERE Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious....
distanthaven24 3 years ago
...institutions. I have followers who were murderers, and many who were self righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, BUT I DO WANT TO JOIN THEM IN THEIR TRANSFORMATION INTO SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF MY PAPA, INTO MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, INTO MY BELOVED."
hmmm, that sounds like pretty sound "doctrine" to me. Again....CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING FOLKS! A Christian I am, but I won't let myself be offended easily.
distanthaven24 3 years ago
Yes, God calls His chosen from from every religion, background, ethnicity etc. but again - not everyone will be saved, only those God has elected.
And, importantly, those who are saved are put to death with Christ and die to their previous life.
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
Also see Ephesians 4:20-24.
Utopiang 3 years ago
Again...a convenient omission from your previously quoted page 182 of the shack...
"Does that mean", asked Mack, "that all roads will lead to you?"
"Not at all" smiled Jesus...."most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you".
I don't think any rational person can say that this is stating that all will be saved. All it is stating is that Jesus has the heart of the shepherd that will leave the 99 to find the lost one.
distanthaven24 3 years ago
"I dont need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. Its not my purpose to punish it; its my joy to cure it." - p.119-120
If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over. - Leviticus 26:18
God, who is enthroned forever, will hear them and afflict them. - Psalm 55:19
For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." - Hebrews 10:30
Utopiang 3 years ago
Moving right along....addressing Utopiang's next "heresy" in the Shack. Again...without CONTEXT, you can junk just about anything, as many have done with the bible itself. Read the chapter in full, and you will see that Young is broaching the subject of the vastly accepted image of the "tyrannical God" that LOVES to punish. The scene is simply saying that people do not know the true heart of God. His heart is a loving heart first and foremost. Look at it this way....if we know that sin.....
distanthaven24 3 years ago
...separates us from God, we are already punished, and WE BRING IT UPON OURSELVES!! We think DISCIPLINE is a bad word, but the root word is DISCIPLE!! Young never said that God doesn't punish...he said that God's purpose is not for the sake of "punishment" in and of itself, but for the sake of sanctification.
"my son, do not despise the chastening of the lord
nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by him,
for whom He loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives" Heb 12:5
distanthaven24 3 years ago
God does not "love" to punish but He is a just God and therefore He must punish sin. This in no way makes Him an unloving God.
We do not bring sin upon ourselves, we are born into sin and are helpless in it. God disciplines believers, not unbelievers. Unbelievers are punished.
You do not seem to understand the concept of sin, distanthaven, or of unbelievers and believers.
Utopiang 3 years ago
...EVERY scripture Utopiang lists here is clearly referring to the proud, unrepentant heart. Those who have,
"trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the spirit of grace." Heb 10:29
That is an entirely different punishment than those who are received sons in the process of being sanctified, and therefore disciplined or discipled. That is what Young is referring to when Papa states, "it's my joy to cure it."
distanthaven24 3 years ago
Young publically states that it is his belief that ALL people are saved, not just believers. However, the Word is very clear that there are vessels of mercy and vessels of destruction - not all will be saved but, in fact, many will be lost.
Utopiang 3 years ago
"Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" - Romans 9:21-23
Utopiang 3 years ago
hmmm...is it possible that you are taking something out of context AGAIN utopiang??? Please state exactly where Young says this and we shall put the CONTEXT of what he is saying out there for intelligent people to discern shall we??
distanthaven24 3 years ago
Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I dont want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me. (p. 146)
But now having been set free from sin, and become slaves to God. Romans 6:22
SLAVE, n. 1. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no will of his own, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. - American Dictionary of the English Language (Noah Webster 1828)
Utopiang 3 years ago
ok....websters dictionary is one way. Let's look at the original greek translation of "slave" from Strongs concordance in CONTEXT. (there's that word again)
b) one who gives himself up to anothers will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men.
This so-called "heresy" is the most comical. Reading the book in context clearly exposes the entire theme of the book! GOD DESIRES RELATIONSHIP!!! ....
distanthaven24 3 years ago
I do not see the difference here between the definition I gave and this one - a slave is one who submits himself to another's will.
There is nothing "comical" about reducing the submission to God from one of a reverent God-fearing to to one of palship.
God desires and requires nothing from us. It is HE and He alone who gives. It is by his mercy that we are saved and regenerated by Christ (not by works). What then can we give to the Lord Almighty?
He does all this for His OWN sake.
Utopiang 3 years ago
...Surrendering our lives to God's will and becoming a bondservant, or slave, does not mean we become mindless, distant followers of doctrine, but rather people who do not count our lives as our own, but rather entering into a relationship where we "trust" our master with every facet of our lives. That is personal. In Hebrew law, a man who was sold as a slave would be allowed to go free after six years of service. However, if he loved his master and wanted to stay with his master, he would..
distanthaven24 3 years ago
..become a bond-servant. His ear would be pierced to signify a life-long covenant. See Exodus 21_2-6 OR Deuteronomy 15:16-17.
In Psalm 40, David writes, "I waited patiently for the LORD and He heard my cry . . . sacrifice and offering you did not desire but my ears you have pierced . . . " (Psalm 40:1-6) Theologians believe that this reference to piercing his ears refers to the Hebrew tradition to "bore his ear", the practice carried out upon a man becoming a bondservant, where his ear..
distanthaven24 3 years ago
..would be bored by pushing an awl through his earlobe and into a door, calculated to impress the servant with the duty of hearing all of his master's orders.
Paul refers to himself as a bond-slave or bond-servant throughout his letters, including in his introduction in the letter to the Romans. It is evident that he has become an bond-servant of his own volition (see Galations 1:10). It is evident in the new testament scriptures that we are invited to a new kind of relationship with...
distanthaven24 3 years ago
..YHWH that is a voluntary response to His drawing us to Himself. We are compelled to become bond-slaves not out of obligation but out of gratitude and an awakened desire to give ourselves entirely over to him. Jesus said in John chapter 15, "I no longer call you servants but I have called you friends."
The time for obligatory, detached service for God is over. The years of slavery to sin and to the law are over. We have entered into the new covenant...
distanthaven24 3 years ago
... an era in which we may choose, by faith and because of the goodness of our Master, to put our own ear to the wall and declare our devotion to him, entering in to His family as adopted sons and daughters, bondslaves to the Living Loving Creator God.
distanthaven24 3 years ago
"By re-turning. By turning back to me. By giving up your ways of power and manipulation and just come back to me." (p. 147)
This is the essence of decisional regeneration, the doctrine that one is born again by making a simple decision to turn to Jesus.
"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." - Romans 9:15-16
Utopiang 3 years ago
Your stating "heresy" yourself in your viewpoints if you want to play that game Utopiang. You are taking a standpoint that has been a topic of debate for centuries and simply deeming your viewpoint to be the right one. How is that not pride? I can easily use scripture to label you a heretic. Your comments are in contradiction to act 2:21 and Romans 10:13 which both state that "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". I do not, however, think you are a heretic, just confused.
distanthaven24 3 years ago
The whole world, Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is no the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way. (p. 192)
By drawing men to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, would this not be an unloving display of force by God according to Young?
"For many are called, but few are chosen." - Matthew 22:14
(Read Matthew 22 for context)
Utopiang 3 years ago
and finally, your reference to page 192 saying "would this not be an unloving display of force by God according to Young?"
..again, you are simply taking a "predestination" stance and labeling anyone who disagrees with you a heretic. Young is simply stating that the work of Christ on the cross opened up the door so that "WHOSOEVER believes in Him, shall not perish, but have eternal life" (you know where that is). You are using Matt. 22:14 to fit your own agenda.
distanthaven24 3 years ago
yea I think this book is garbage as well, but I also think the lady in this clip is not handling this the right way. I think she's taking too much out of context and attacking some of the wrong things in order to make her point.
jdubhua 3 years ago
I don't agree with how she interpreted that quote. In the quote Jesus says that "those who love me COME FROM every system that exists. They WERE buddhists, mormons, etc."
Christians are not the only people that God wants to have a relationship with, he wants to draw buddhists and muslims and atheists to him also. People that come to know Christ can come from any background in the world, but the point is that they have found the truth, no matter what they were in the past.
swishymantree 3 years ago 3
There is no question in my mind that there is going to be a great diversity of backgrounds and ethnicities in eternity. I love the line further down (pg. 182) and not mentioned in this clip (although the quote Ingrid used is not word for word) where Jesus says, "What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you." I am so glad that Jesus regardless of background or ethnicity will endeavor to reach me and share His unconditional love with me so that I could be called one of His!
EdenStudentMinistry 3 years ago
I couldn't agree more ESM?
distanthaven24 3 years ago
This is what drives me nuts as a Jesus follower..."Christians" taking a couple of sentences and ripping on the story to make their point without taking into context the "whole" story. Many preachers do this on Sundays. They take a couple of verses that are totally unrelated and out of context to make their point. They don't relate it to the bigger picture of the book that it's found in or how it relates to the whole story of the Bible. They just pick out verses to make "Their" point.
EdenStudentMinistry 3 years ago
This book "The Shack" talks of the death and resurrection of Christ, the love and grace of God, the fact that He wants nothing but to love us and have a relationship with us. The author wrote a book of fiction to explain to his kids what he went through coming to Christ not a "new Bible". You guys remind me of the deciples when they ran up to Jesus and told him about the people down the hill casting out demons and healing people in His name and wanted to know if He wanted to go and stop them
johndpuck 3 years ago
well prhea, God's not talking about himself in that particular passage. he never refers to himself as "her" anywhere...
jdubhua 3 years ago
Tell me why God refers to himself as "her?"
in some translations he references breasts....
Cant wait to hear this one..
Isaiah 66:12
12 For this is what the LORD says: "I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream; you will nurse and be carried on her arm and dandled on her knees.
prhea1st 3 years ago
OH YEAH....THEY DO THAT ANYWAY...
prhea1st 3 years ago
This book is classified FICTION for a reason -in my 1st yr at a Baptist college I was judged for teaching sunday school at a different "liberal" denomination. There's a reason y churches crumble under the weight of their dogma.I see nothing wrong in a story that can move ppl toward God. After all - isn't that what parables were all about? I knew Paul Young at a diff college that I went to a yr later - he was a man of God-someone who accepted you and loved you as a person - and didn't judge
snowflakemtn 3 years ago
ingrid schlueter is also a racist. she just parrotted amy's comment: "God is introduced as this african-american woman". if she wasn't a racist, she would've corrected amy. also, the idea that God reveals Himself through other religions is not heresy. "all truth is God's truth". those religions do contain truths; that's undeniable. the Jesus of the book doesn't say other religions are ways to salvation. they are ways He reveals Himself. in fact, He explicitly says not all roads lead to Him.
whynot1871 3 years ago
the caller named amy is a racist. she said she got to the part where God is a "fat black woman" and it was "horrid". amy, if you're reading this, realize that "fat black women" are created in the image and likeness of God. therefore, God could just as easily manifest Himself as a white man with a beard as He could a "fat black woman" as He could a jewish man. i'm sure you're not a white-hood-wearing, cross-burning white supremacist, but you are a racist nonetheless.
whynot1871 3 years ago
how on earth can this woman possibly have a radio program?
whynot1871 3 years ago 2
The book makes it clear that there is only one way to the father,Jesus.Jesus was the center of the book.God isn't religon.Man created religon.Jesus steps in to our messed up ideas to bring us to truth. pastors trash the book saying not to have graven images but you will find pictures of a man and call it Jesus.the book is clear that God is nor man nor female but spirit. He campared himself as sheperd,rock,tree. The father with the protical son.comes back to Jesus, bridges and connects to Him.
davidandcrystal15 3 years ago
the trinity is depicted as an african woman, jewish man and a strange lady. The main character has had troubles with his father and "God" chooses to reveal a different side of him/herself than the traditional white bearded and skinned grandpa that we're comfortable with. once you can fit God in a box, hes no longer God. The book "illustrates" one mans somewhat one sided view of who God is. it is not infallible, but there are many good ideas to broaden our understanding in this book.
whatdaworld 3 years ago
The book is filled with useful metaphors and there is no threat to anyones belief, unless they create one in there mind.
What is sad is using scripture to try and prove something to support a viewpoint?
The Bible is so misused, to me that is the sin.
HY34HU 3 years ago
the book, Christ says that he doesn't 'want to make anyone a Christian' and that he 'isn't a Christian' ... he's trying to say he's not part of that whole man-made system and sub-culture that we've created. He's not about the comfortable talk-radio Christianity that we have in America ... that a word doesn't define anyone as a follower of Christ. Christ never coined the term "Christian", so that's not what following Him is about.
jerwilt1 3 years ago
Yes, but you have to consider what the word Christian means. We have this idea that we can be a "Christ follower" as a good buddhist or other nonsense like that. This is Heresy and yet that is exactly what is being said in the Shack.
terriergal 3 years ago
Read the book and it greatly blessed me. I suspect that many people leaving comments here have not read the book. The position on the clip is accepted in ignorance!
Aociardha 3 years ago
I haven't read the Satanic Bible, should I have to in order to know if it is bad?
terriergal 3 years ago
How to you know its satanic?
Aociardha 3 years ago
thankyou so much for this. God bless whoever is standing up for truth in these end times.very very few people i might add! who are being persecuted by the church itself.
you guys just read ur bibles!
GodsWordIsTruth 3 years ago
Why do many Christians fall into this deception?
Because they don't study their Bibles and dig deeper!
William is another wolf in sheep's clothing and Christians are getting devoured by his doctrines.
If you are a born-again Christian examine the book in the light of the Bible(Acts 17:11; 1 Thess 5:21; 2 Timothy 3:13-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 John 4:1-6)
POC777 3 years ago
I'm sure all your references are pointing to exactly this book,You be our eyes to know your TRUTH! The SKY is falling run for lives. This is mans greatest corruption standing in Gods shoes and spewing Bible passages to support his own views. Spare the rod?
HY34HU 3 years ago
This book is dope! Ingrid cracks me up! This book was written for the kids of William Paul Young, and when he wrote the book he did not intend to make more then 15 copies. And it is obviously a God thing due to the amount of friction and conversations it has stirred up. Ingrid the reason it is so popular and has been spread to people through word of mouth is because God is shaking the bottle and seeing whats going to happen. Dope
traut02 3 years ago
That is pragmatism. You assume because something works that it is from God. Read Ezekiel. In Ezekiel God told the false prophets He would answer their prayers in order to keep them in their deception. I refer you to William Young and his brother's appearance on Paula White Today. They both said that the doctrine of the Trinity meant nothing to them. They would rather it all be about their own personal relationship with Christ. Transaltion? Idolatry.
theocratickingdom30 3 years ago
Excuse me dope, it doesn't matter what his intentions were of writing such unbiblical lies nor WHO he wrote them for.
DO you read your Bible? The end times apostasy will cause GREAT division and deceive the very elect of God if that were possible. Yes, I agree, this kind of thing is God shaking the bottle and purifying the church. The dross will be swept away by these winds of false doctrine.
terriergal 3 years ago
Unbiblical lies huh! Have you ever heard of a parable? The same thing that Christ used to help people understand what he was trying to say!
My question terriergal is this, have you even read the book?
traut02 3 years ago
all the parables in the bible never went against the teaching of God. the shack has many things in it that go against the bible.
metal1685 3 years ago
The Shack appeals to people who are looking for a god created in their own likeness. The danger is much the same as Scientology, Christian Science and the Book of Mormon, all of which redefined biblical terms and principles for the sake of marketing. They caused much division and started major American cults.
apologiamixer 3 years ago
@apologiamixer The protestant movement is saturated with re-defined terms. Every major denomination is full of rebellion and full of backbiting against every other denomination. Rebellion causes cults. Books not intended to be scripture... but to heal, are NOT the same as KJV-onlyism, Book of Mormon, etc... The Shack is fiction and is not intended to be anything else. The haters can't empathize with anyone who may need to read The Shack. Sad for you.
KeyboardPacifist 1 year ago
I read the whole book and I don't think this critique is off the mark.
BluePodcast 3 years ago
Many of the so called "heresies" of this book are not what the ctitics think they are due to lack of reading the whole story or reading with preconceived notions.
timshen6475 3 years ago
Page 182 must