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

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SqH6WT9hhk

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-wBR6eJoPI

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JeZsxIfEOI

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVKX-aZxW6A

Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUHyXgo105c

Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REmJLB3GeZQ

"The Shack" by William P. Young, or Paul Young, is currently without a doubt the most popular book within Christian circles. In fact, its popularity is so widespread that is currently the seventh bestselling book on Amazon.com.

But should Christians be reading this book? Many other Christians, such as Matt Slick, have accused "The Shack" of teaching heresy regarding God's nature, especially the Trinity.

Matt Slick of CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) interviews William Young, the author, in this clip and exposes some of the errors in the book. This clip is from Matt Slick's radio show, "Faith and Reason" and is from carm.org.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Matt
• Slick
• CARM
• Faith
• Reason
• William
• P.
• Paul
• Young
• The
• Shack
• RAIDERJO76
• heresy
• Patripassionism
• Modalism
• Ontological
• Trinity
• Theology
• Debate
• God
• Christianity
• Jesus
• Holy
• Spirit
• Father

[wedge2006]

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

[strech7951]

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[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]

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

[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?