“Who is the author? William P. Young, a man I have known for over a dozen years. About four years ago [he] embraced ‘Christian universalism,’ and has defended this view on several occasions,” writes Western Professor Seminary Professor James De Young.
Here is De Young’s short, Biblical analysis of this heretical book. http://theshackreview.com/content/TheShackReview2Page.pdf
For the time will come when they not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and will turn awy their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy4:3-4)
The King James refers to “myths” as “fables.” Noting this on Jan Markell’s radio program, Pastor Larry DeBruyn observed, “‘Fables’ means fiction, doesn’t it?”
Yeh, sure does.
4 responses so far ↓
twoclayfeet // March 3, 2009 at 5:55 am |
In the chat with Mr. Young on abunga.com he was asked if the controversy of the book made him wish he had changed any aspect of it. He said no. He mentioned the accusation of Universalism, and suggested we read an article on windrumors.com called ‘The Beauty of Ambiguity (Mystery)’ In this article Papa asks him if he is a universalist, he responds with “You know that I’m not. I know that faith in Jesus is the only way into your embrace; that only what you did on that cross saves us.” He is talking to Papa. Jesus was on the cross, not our Heavenly Father.
On page 225 in The Shack Papa tells Mack that “in Jesus I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me – - but only some choose relationship.” We know that “through one man sin came into the world, and death as the consequence of sin, and death spread to all men, because all men sinned” (Romans 5:12.) Jesus came to be our atoning sacrifice, but if we reject His instructions we cannot have our sins forgiven and become His child — a Christian. Jesus tells us in Luke 13:3 and John 3:3 we must repent and be born again, that we must bear the fruit of repentance (Luke 13:5-9 – which links to John in Luke 3:8-9 and then back to Jesus in Matthew 13:3-9 and 23.) Before He was crucified Jesus said “I have . . come to call . . . sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32), and after His resurrection He told the apostles “that in His name repentance as the condition for the forgivness of sins should be preached to all the nations” (Luke 24:47.) That proves that everyone must repent, and that His death on the cross did not cancel what He said in Luke 13:3 and 5, as they were to begin proclaiming this from Jerusalem. Jesus cannot become our Savior unless or until we repent of our sin and rebellion. We cannot have a relationship with the Lord if we refuse to obey Him. Believing in God without obedience to His commands will not save your soul (James 2:14-26 Amplified Bible.) If we refuse to obey the truth and be saved, we will become deceived and will be condemned. (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)
The god of the Shack teaches that we “don’t have to follow the rules”, that “responsibility and expectation are just another form of rules we are no longer under” (page 203.) And yet the Shacks’ god often tells Mack that he wants to live in us — “We will come and live our life inside of you” (page 149.) Jesus is very clear that we must obey Him for that to happen — “If any one loves me,” replied Jesus, “he will obey my teaching; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who has no love for me does not obey my teaching.” (John 14:23-24a)
We are to “be holy” because God is holy (1Peter 1:16.) A Christian (a follower and imitator of Christ), obeys God. Anyone that does not obey God is not a Christian. The Strong’s definition of ‘holy’ in 1 Peter 1:16 (Strong’s G40) is “sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated)” Blameless (Strong’s G273) is “irreproachable”. Irreproachable in Webster’s 1828 is “upright; innocent”. The pertinent definition of upright is “Honest; just; adhering to rectitude in all social intercourse; not deviating from correct moral principles”. And the pertinent definition of innocent is “free from guilt; not having done wrong or violated any law; not tainted with sin; pure; upright”. Strong’s G3741 reinforces the fact that when “blameless” is boiled down it means free from sin and pure: ” . . . and from G40, which relates to purity from defilement”. Defilement: “Corruption of morals, principles or character; impurity; pollution by sin. Therefore ‘holy’ means: set apart; free from sin; pure. Jesus teaches us that we must obey Him and our Heavenly Father in order to have a relationship with them. (Matthew 7:21-23)
As obedient children, stop molding your character by the evil desires you used to cherish when you did not know any better, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I AM holy.”
Oh, to be like Thee! blessed Redeemer, This is my constant longing and prayer. Gladly I’ll forfeit all of earth’s treasures. Jesus, Thy perfect likeness to wear.
Oh, to be like Thee! full of compassion, Loving, forgiving, tender and kind, Helping the helpless, cheering the fainting. Seeking the wandering sinner to find!
Oh, to be like Thee! lowly in spirit, Holy and harmless, patient and brave; Meekly enduring cruel reproaches, Willing to suffer others to save.
Oh, to be like Thee! Lord, I am coming, Now to receive the anointing divine. All that I am and have I am bringing. Lord, from this moment all shall be Thine.
Oh, to be like Thee! While I am pleading, Pour out Thy Spirit, fill with Thy love. Make me a temple meet for Thy dwelling; Fit me for life and heaven above.
Oh, to be like Thee! Oh, to be like Thee, blessed Redeemer, pure as Thou art! Come in Thy sweetness, come in Thy fullness; Stamp Thine own image deep on my heart.
— Thomas O. Chisholm –
john // March 3, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
Thanks, Thomas. Well put. When The Shack movie comes out we will be dealing with Father-goddess worship in the church on a major scale.
twoclayfeet // March 4, 2009 at 7:44 am |
John -
It was shocking that in The Beauty of Ambiguity on windrumors the author was continuing to have a conversation (in the flesh) with Papa, and that Papa was again a she. Papa appearing as a woman again makes it look a lot more like a teaching, and not so much like a way for Mack to better relate to this god.
mywordlikefire // March 4, 2009 at 7:52 pm |
It is amazing how this book has been accepted. It is cleverly written, perhaps even more cleverly edited.