Matt Slick Interviews William P. Young on "The Shack" (Part 5)

[concerto35]

The Bible does not teach Universalism or universal salvation. Carlton Pearson believed all people would be saved. This is not theologically tenable.  However in John 3: 18, it states that: "He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because He has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. In 2 Peter 3:9, it states that God intends that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[Xnpilot1]

Let me say it. - Yes!

The blood of Jesus washed the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. God has forgiven all mankind.

So, you say, Are those in hell, now, forgiven?

Eternal life and the kingdom of God is much more than a destination of heaven or hell, but to answer your second question, yes. They are forgiven.

But heaven or hell is not a matter of Sin, but of family.

Jesus said, "You MUST be born again!"

Think.

Separate - religion from relationship - the intimate knowing of a Father's love.

[RAIDERJO76]

Xnpilot1, what is your basis for saying that every single individual who has ever lived is forgiven by God?

And how can you possibly say that whether one spends eternity in heaven or hell does not have to do with sin? What is your basis for this claim? The Biblical teaching is that all deserve hell because all have sinned against God, yet God has saved His people, taking away their sin, so that He may dwell among them and they may eternally be His people.

[strech7951]

sounds like universilism to me, no matter which way you slice it up.

[HolyBeThyName]

Matt Slick would have made a good Pharisee. I could see Matt the Pharisee 2000 yrs ago trying to test Jesus. Matt needs to chill out and listen for a change. The author of "The Shack" was right when he said that Jesus is the Savior of all mankind,..However, that doesn't mean that all mankind is saved because to be saved requires a response on our part. So the Author of "the Shack" was right and Matt Slick was wrong. Matt Slick seems to be a hardcore Calvinist. Calvinism is wrong theology.

[RAIDERJO76]

HolyBeThyName, can you please explain why you believe Calvinism is unbiblical?

[carpentersdaughter2]

Mr. Young is in severe denial when he says all men are forgiven isn't universal salvation.

That's like saying a duck in the lake screaming out he's not a duck.

Severe denial from Mr. Young

[redmage1]

Interesting that Young would not answer the simple question, "are all humans forgiven of their sins?" A simple yes or no would have done. Slick was not interested in hearing Young quote verses. Slick wanted to know how Young interpreted the verse...which he was unwilling to do (although it's seems pretty obvious which way he leans on the issue)

[4givn4life]

Playing in Matt's sandbox is like playing in the mudpile of legalism.

[RAIDERJO76]

What do you mean by that?

[gracelife4ever]

There is more than sand in the sandbox just like there is always more to a legalists interpretation of scripture. Hey, raider, go to the review by pilgrimprog and get a real, intelligent, and ubiased review of the book.

[RAIDERJO76]

Gracelife4ever, believing what Scripture says and interpreting it correctly does not make one a legalist. How is Slick being a legalist in this interview? All of these issues have been over Biblical doctrine, my friend.

And just because someone gives a bad review of your holy scripture doesn't mean that their review is unintelligent, unreal, and biased. Perhaps you are the one with a bias?

[hasani42]

Playing in William P. Young's box isnt even possible, hes a universalist.

[olliewesley]

I listened to a preacher recently who summed up what i beleive is happening today. People are watering down the bible, and making it "less offensive" in certain areas, and actaully taking away some of its power, its seems harmless, but as the preacher put it "it is a slight of hand", very true.

[olliewesley]

To many christians this book is a breath of fresh air,Why? Because the American church has distorted the true meaning of christianity, a large majority of christians i speak to are sick of the church ,and lots are in disagrement of the way things are done. Paul youngs book offers a fresh perspective on God which people havnt been able to recieve elswhere.But It is no more than a quaint novel, and it does water down some aspects of doctrine which the church today is already loosing grip of!

[RAIDERJO76]

I'm in complete agreement, Ollie.

[RM77MKII]

Through W. P Young's comments in this section, we can truly see how and why he wrote the book. There was no bush big enough to beat when it came to answering if "Everyone is saved" Hence just the "Relationship" aspect of the book. Anyone reading The Shack should really look deep into "Propiatiation" It will change your life and will let you know where this book belongs. I know it opened up my eyes.

[YahwehKing]

God is no longer holding the world's sins against them but you know thats just what the bible says

[RAIDERJO76]

YahwehKing, is the Bible wrong, then?

[olliewesley]

yahwehking, why does the Bible say,and jesus say, that many will perish. Is he holding sins against the world? well if your read the whole book you will see that in fact God still sees the wicked and all who are not hidden in christ the Bible says will perish. Why on earth did jesus need to die otherwise, that those who cloth themselves with him, and believe on his name will be saved. The wicked will be punished, not by are standard, but Gods holy standard, jesus said if you curse your brother..

[nonamesprettyplease]

So "all" doesn't mean ALL and "the world" doesn't mean THE WORLD?

Good Grief!!

It is THE SAME "ALL" who died in Adam who are MADE RIGHTEOUS in Jesus Christ.

Would Matt Slick want to claim that NOT ALL MEN died in Adam??????

Even if one doesn't believe that all are saved because we all have a "choice" in whether or not we believe, that doesn't change THE FACT that Christ died on the cross FOR THE WORLD, not imputing their (THE WORLD'S) sins against them.

[Utopiang]

Yes, Christ died for all, nonamesprettyplease, but not all will accept the gift of redemption. Many will reject it and die in their sin... damned for all eternity.

The reality of unbelievers being cast into Lake of Fire is Biblically sound doctrine.

[nonamesprettyplease]

Nowhere does scriptures say that the "free gift" must be "accepted". And aionios does not mean without end (eternal). The eons (ages) were created and they have both a beginning and an end, according to scripture.

[RAIDERJO76]

Hey, noname,

I'm not NECESSARILY on board with Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption either (I'm still thinking it over; right now I call myself a 4.5 point Calvinist lol). However, I do think that you should be less dogmatic on the issue. For example, I disagree with Arminians' soteriology and think that it leads either to a lessened view of God's holiness or a too exalted view of man. But at the same time, I realize that these issues are debatable. There are essentials of the Christian

[RAIDERJO76]

faith that we MUST be dogmatic about, such as justification by grace alone through faith alone, montheism, etc etc, but this is not one of those issues, and therefore I think we should be more open and less dogmatic when it comes to the extent of the atonement.

Thanks for commenting!

[nonamesprettyplease]

May I ask what you are referring to when you say "dogmatic"? I simply wonder why all doesn't mean all or why the world doesn't mean the world. I get that these things are up for debate, they are debated all the time. This is why there are so many different flavors of Christianity. If I can explain why "eternal punishment" doesn't last eternally then others should be able to explain why all doesn't mean all and the world doesn't mean the world. That's all. I am also sure they think they can. :o)

[RAIDERJO76]

Basically, I'm saying that you can have your opinion, but that there a certain things that are not "essentials" of the faith, and therefore we need to be loving and gentle with our brothers and sisters. This isn't the case, for example, with sola fide; Scripture clearly declares anathema on those who try to save themselves by their own good works. But in regards to Particular Redemption and any of the other points of Calvinism, we need to be open-minded.

[RAIDERJO76]

By the way, I'm curious, how do you figure that Scripture doesn't teach of eternal damnation?

[Weallfart]

Sarcasm of Paul Young??? Do your ears work??? Matt Slick started and continued the entire time to do this interview laced with sarcasm...Pitiful..

[Utopiang]

Wealifart, your comment and multiple question marks proves my point.

Considering the level of heresy in the book, Matt Slick was very patient. As I mentioned, it is the poor doctrine that concerns me.

[Weallfart]

multiple questions, bro it was TWO! Again, Matt Slick is someone, who if in person, talked to me that way, I would be very put off..not the CONTENT, but he WAY in which he addresses Paul is very arrogant. At one point when Paul says GOD IS THE ALLBREASTED ONE.. Mike simply says really fast.."that's nice" and continues on.. One thing I have noticed about OPPONENTS of Pauls book is how completely arrogant and self righteous they are.

[Utopiang]

I stated "multiple question marks".

Sadly, I have made precisely the same observation about the proponents of Young's book. It appears that fans of the "The Shack" believe that it has the answers that the Bible does not.

If fundamental bible-believing Christians stand for the Word of God we are inevitably accused of being arrogant and self-righteous. It is tragic that the love for the Word has waxed cold because its message saves. Young denies its power by reducing it to a "paper Pope".

[Weallfart]

What I was referring to was again not the CONTENT of what Slick was talking about but how he was coming OFF that really turned me off to him. I, do not believe the Shack answers ANYTHING except curiousity for reading a FICTIONAL story about a mans VISION he had. Why did Slick have to ask him time and time again to clarify that it was a fictional Story. He said it was, but slick kept asking over and over and over.. Just reeked of arrogance to me... The love of the WORD isn't wax cold in my life.

[Utopiang]

Wealifart, people who read The Shack are in danger of being indoctrinated by Universal Reconciliation. Be wary and study all angles of Young's theology. An article by his friend of many years James B. De Young entitled "Revisiting The Shack and Universal Reconciliation" is an excellent starting point because he knows the inside story and the editing done to water the UR down in the book.

The Word cautions us to test everything - research the author's core beliefs.

[Weallfart]

I don't believe in Universal Reconciliation.

[Utopiang]

Young does.

[Weallfart]

I don't. I don't believe in many things many different types, denominations of preachers say. That doesn't meant that EVERYTHING they say is wrong. Is your theological worldview without spot or blemish? Is there room for patience for others? Is there room for loving people when they don't think or believe the same??

[Utopiang]

Weallfart, it isn't about being wrong or right with regards to a personal theology, it is about the plain Word of God as inspired by Him. Christian Universalism is heresy. Do not trust my word, research it yourself.

[RAIDERJO76]

Wealifart,

I see what you're saying and I respect a lot of what you have said in your discussion with Utopiang, however I'm not sure if you understand the position of the opponents to the Shack. If what we're saying is true, and the book does teach modalism, for example, then we are right in being dogmatic, no matter how fuzzy it made you feel. See what I mean? We can discuss these things, but we need to agree to discuss SCRIPTURE over feelings. Agreed?

[Weallfart]

Or, is it more aptly put, one's interpretation of scripture over feelings? Feelings, much to the chagrin of many, should NOT be ignored, otherswise why did "PAPA" (Father GOD) from the shack, create us with feelings to experience. BUT, watch out now, Scripture doesn't describe EVERYTHING about GOD or Human Experience does it? Plus, since you seem to be cordial, could we discuss this via email??

[RAIDERJO76]

Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you...

Sure, do you have an im, or do you just want to communite with pm on youtube?

[Utopiang]

Unfortunately, Paul Young's lack of grace and continuous sarcasm is a common trait in those who vigorously defend "The Shack". However, it is not the unkindness of spirit which grieves me but rather it is the poor doctrine these people are vainly labouring for.

[Weallfart]

I can't believe you can not or will not see how rude Matt Slick is in this interview. Listening to Paul again, I do not sense the sarcasm you are talking about. I have listened to the entire Interview and can't really stand to listen to slick anymore because of this interview. His only motive in this interview is trying to get Paul to slip up and say some HERETICAL statement so he can "CATCH HIM" and prove him wrong. I have no problem with debates or dialogues with opposing views, but not this!

[Utopiang]

The reason that you cannot detect the sarcasm in Young's speech is because you are a proponent of the book. And with the book comes a strong delusion. If you do not know how demons operate then please find out. They addle the mind and without prayer and intervention by God it is impossible to discern the truth.

This is not merely a book, it is a doctrine of demons. It is destroying the true Gospel of Christ with seduction and it seeks to twist the meaning of scripture. Be wary and pray.

[Weallfart]

It's destroying the GOSPEL?? I wonder if Jesus is nervous. Yes I am being sarcastic but listen to what you just wrote. One book is destroying the Gospel of Christ??? Maybe in your mind or your heart but most definately not mine. I read The Shack, fell on my knees and cried knowing how wonderful my Heavenly Father is. He loves us. Wether you read the shack or not, FATHER/PAPA/Adonai loves us.

[Utopiang]

It is destroying the truth message of the Gospel because it teaches a different gospel, a different christ and a different spirit. Those who follow this false gospel cannot be saved or enjoy fellowship with God.

Tragically, Weallfart, if you are praying to the god described in The Shack, you are not praying to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but a counterfeit version.

This book is demonic and dangerous.

[Utopiang]

Christians are encouraged by the Lord to test everything according the holy Word - just as the noble Bereans did in order to be discerning against the devil's wiles:

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few." - Acts 17:11-12

[Weallfart]

It is amazing to me that you can come to that conclusion, wow. My brother, I pray to the the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who sent his Son Jesus to us to be the propitiation for our sins. Just because I like a book and don't believe in being rude to (unlike Mike Slick who displayed a very intense rudeness in the interview) the author, now you are questioning my salvation? Dude, you should divorce John Calvin. I can't believe you would say that.

[Utopiang]

I do not prescribe to Calvin but hold the same view that Charles Spurgeon did on the matter.

I am not questioning your salvation, that is for God to know, I am warning you against believing in Young's version of God. If you believe that the god He writes about is the same Lord of the Bible then you have fallen into a snare.

The true triune God, the true God of love is in the Bible, not "The Shack". If you want to know God's love, read His holy Word. He reveals His love for us perfectly.

[Utopiang]

There are two elements you seem to be avoiding:

Young is a Universalist and despite his denying it, his long time friend James B. De Young exposes it with first hand accounts and a list of heretical points in the book.

And you do not seem to be willing to deal with the fact that you are required by God to TEST everything according to scripture. Those who do ultimately reject the book's dangerous theology.

The Lord tells us that if we have not a love for the truth we will be deceived.

[Weallfart]

Tell me this Utopiang, when the Apostle Paul boldly declared, "in him we move, and live and have our being," where, my friend, did he quote that from?????

I don't care if he is a universalist or an expansionist or a pianist, just because someone writes a paper on the internet saying he is my friend, that doesn't mean he is my friend. Regardless, I am friends with and have relationships with Mormons, JW's, Homosexuals etc.. They don't agree with me, should I leave them and denouce them?

[Utopiang]

I agree, do not trust man. Trust the WORD.

If you are friends with unbelievers then you are directly disobeying the Lord who tells us not to yoke ourselves with them:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (2 Corinthians 6:14-15)

I encourage you to repent.

[Weallfart]

That's really odd, Jesus was called a friend of sinners and wine bibbers??? Maybe I am reading a different part of the bible. Be Not Yoked.. YOKED, has to do with work etc.. You would YOKE the oxen together, put them together to plow a field, plant seed and expect a harvest. But, yeah, my friends are my coworkers whom I see 8 hours out of a day. Do you work at home by yourself with your bible and that's it????

[Utopiang]

It may seem odd to you but it is the truth. Another translation for "yoke" is "bound". In other words, if you have a bond with unbelievers, it is a sin.

You clearly wish to avoid the truth. The scripture also speaks of righteousness not being in fellowship with righteousness, of mixing light and dark or Christ with a false idol and of believers not being on the same path as an unbeliever.

You cannot deny the scriptures. If you do, then you deliberately deny the Lord's sovereign Word.

[Utopiang]

I study the Word because I love God.

[Utopiang]

In Acts 17:20 Paul is talking to idol worshippers and he is telling them that the God of Abraham created man, not a stone idol. His message does not speak of our being saved by virtue of our creation.

We are fallen until Christ brings us to repentance.

[Weallfart]

You neglected to answer my question about the quote?? Where did Paul get that quote from?? Do you know the answer?

[Utopiang]

No, I did answer you. I wrote:

"In Acts 17:20 Paul is talking to idol worshippers and he is telling them that the God of Abraham created man, not a stone idol. His message does not speak of our being saved by virtue of our creation.

We are fallen until Christ brings us to repentance."

[Utopiang]

The message came to Paul from God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

[Weallfart]

Dude, can you not answer one question? When Paul said.. "in him we live and move and have our being.. WHERE WAS HE QUOTING FROM???

[Utopiang]

I am a woman, Weallfart. It is believed that the exact quote from Acts 17:28 is a reference to a poem of Epimenides. And "For we are indeed his offspring" is a quote from Aratus in 310 B.C. who hailed from Pauls own country.

Keep in mind that Paul was speaking to Greeks who had never read the OT and therefore he drew on a truth from their own culture to teach them. These two quotes are entirely true by the grace of God. Had they been untrue, Paul would not have used them.