Matt Slick Interviews William P. Young on "The Shack" (Part 4)

[RAIDERJO76]

Well Ele I haven't read the Shack, so I couldn't say I know what Young says, all I know is that in this interview Matt's point was that the Father was not crucified.

As for Reformed theology, your argument is an ad hominem attack; in other words, rather than refuting what Reformed theology actually says, you're simply attacking proponents of Reformed theology. Not only this, but your claim that Calvin and Augustine went around killing non-Calvinists is simple historical fiction; it'd be like

[RAIDERJO76]

saying George Washington was a disciple of Jesus in Japan and walked around with his underwear over his head because he was from Venus... It just isn't true. But again, that's besides the point, because even if it WAS true, that wouldn't mean that Reformed theology itself is therefore false.

In regards to your claims about the early church fathers, that is very arguable, but again that's NOT the point. Why is it that you are appealing to the church fathers as you authority? Why won't

[RAIDERJO76]

you argue against Reformed theology from the Scriptures? I am open-minded on these issues, but if you're looking to convince me that Reformed theology is false, you're going to need to take me to the Scriptures, because that's what my conscience is held captive to, NOT the church fathers.

Finally, regarding free-will, Reformed theology does in any way deny free-will; this common misconception about Reformed theology simply isn't true.

Thanks for responding! Peace

[RAIDERJO76]

Well, Ele, I don't think one can go very far arguing against the fact that Reformed theology is the Biblical position. But the main issue is certainly the latter part of your comment, about the cross. Matt's assertion was simply that it was not the Father who was crucified, but Jesus; the teaching that the Father was crucified is a very old heresy called Patripasionism, which has been refuted for centuries.

In regards to Jesus' words on the cross "My God my God, why have you

[RAIDERJO76]

forsaken me," Jesus was making reference to Psalm 22 which is an ancient prophesy in regards to the crucifixion. So in other words, Jesus was claiming that His crucifixion was in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesy in Psalm 22.

Thanks for responding, I hope we can have a beneficial conversation :)

[RAIDERJO76]

Ele, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue, do you think you can elaborate?

[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.

[nathaw11]

Paul Young is running circles around this guy!!!

[Utopiang]

Yes, he is running circles around him... to avoid being exposed as a heretic. Many astute Christian apologists have stated that trying to get Paul Young to confess what he really believes is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. He tap dances around important theological questions because he is a false teacher who does not wish to be exposed as one.

He knows that he cannot stand up against biblical scrutiny so he employs diversion tactics.

[nathaw11]

This interview was by far the worst one I have heard yet, and I have listened to alot.

[Utopiang]

Did the interviewer say anything unbiblical, nathaw11?

[nathaw11]

My point here is, who wants to listen to a guy talk that sounds like a know-it-all? Even if Matt is right, his approach is such a turn off. I wouldn't listen to the guy for that reason alone.

[Utopiang]

The only reason that you should reject Matt Slick is if his theology is wrong, not because you think that he sounds like a "know-it-all". Sound biblical knowledge is not to be despised or unrighteously judged.

If you were to learn about God from the Bible you would not judge Slick this way, you would support him. He is actually being very patient with Young considering how difficult it is to interview a man who uses manipulative tactics to distract from the the false theology he is teaching.

[nathaw11]

I would disagree. I would not listen to someone who has no love and talks the way Matt Slick does. Again, you can know everything but have no love, what is the use?

[Utopiang]

How do you define "unloving", nathaw11?

I would encourage you to visit Matt Slick's website where you can hear him debating atheists and those who disagree with him on the Biblical infallibility. You will find that he is an extremely compassionate, loving and accommodating man. The reason that he has a particular distain for "The Shack" (not the author) is that it has a deadly theology. His defense of God's Word is one of faithful love for Christ and His sheep.

w w w(.)carm(.)org/radio

[RAIDERJO76]

Nathaw11, I think it would be more unloving of Matt Slick to be a liar by pretending that there is nothing wrong with false teaching. What is unloving about teaching the truth of God's Word and exposing error?

[nathaw11]

You have just assumed that you and Matt Slick are 100% correct about every discussed in the book.

[RAIDERJO76]

Nathaw, the issue isn't even who's right here, the point is, Slick is attempting to defend what Scripture says. I see nothing wrong or unloving about that.

[wedge2006]

Nice to see a reformed (Calvinist) response to the Shack.

[crosshockey21]

Young's presentation of God is dynamic monarchianism which was condemned as a heresy in the early centuries of church history. That's a big problem.

[strech7951]

wow amazing verbal gymnastics to try and avoid saying that standards and expectations are not the same and then fails to do so.

[PWitness]

It's a relief to know that Mr. Young is not an Open Theist.