|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/5/2008 4:51:19 PM
|
|
|
DuckTalk
Posts: 228
Joined: 9/16/2008
From: A Duck Hole in Tennessee
Status: offline
|
I finished reading "The Shack" and will say that I have never been so intrigued by a work of fiction in all of my life! I came away with a far better understanding of the Trinity & an extremely refreshed spirituality.
I would recommend "The Shack" to anyone & EVERYONE, except the hard-core fundamentalists who have God boxed in as only their concept of what God should be. ALL WHAT THE BOOK IS ABOUT, our silly perceptions.
I want a wardrobe in the colors of the Holy Spirit. THAT WAS AWESOME descriptiveness!!!!!!!!!!
Some call it heretical, but heretics is simply some system of belief that conflicts with a previously established canon of that belief. With that said, EVERY piece of literature aside from the bible is heresy.
All things consdiered, there is absolutely nothing in "The Shack" that can be argued as unscriptural and to throw it across the room, slam the cover shut or refuse to read it is about as legalistically ignorant as it gets.
_____________________________
Sufferin' sassafrass. The nerve of some people, profitting from other people's miseries.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/5/2008 5:09:02 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4407
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I think it actually confuses what the trinity is more than anything.
And it doesn't bother you that there is a separate judge, wrongly suggesting that God doesn't not judge anyone and negating an awful lot of scripture in the process?
I came away from it having read a mediocre piece of fiction and worried that my friends would think they now understood the trinity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/5/2008 6:01:31 PM
|
|
|
DuckTalk
Posts: 228
Joined: 9/16/2008
From: A Duck Hole in Tennessee
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
And it doesn't bother you that there is a separate judge, wrongly suggesting that God doesn't not judge anyone and negating an awful lot of scripture in the process? I may not be fully understanding what you are asking, but it is my understanding that God is not predisposed to judge a man until his judgment day. Who is the separate judge that you refer to?
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
I came away from it having read a mediocre piece of fiction and worried that my friends would think they now understood the trinity. To make that statement, then you must fully understand the Trinity. Does this book describe the love of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit incorrectly?
_____________________________
Sufferin' sassafrass. The nerve of some people, profitting from other people's miseries.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/6/2008 12:15:23 AM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2072
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think it actually confuses what the trinity is more than anything.
stellaluna,
Can you give a concrete example so we can discuss this?  LL
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/6/2008 9:55:46 AM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4407
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I'll try, but I've learned that criticism of The Shack is futile at best. (This is fiction...this is fiction...this is fiction...)
Anywho...the whole conversation about how God, Jesus and Holy Spirit submit to each other and to Mack is flat out not scriptural. It doesn't take into account that God is in charge, that Jesus submitted to the Father and I can't find anything in the bible about God submitting to me? You've gotta be kidding.
As for the judge, I was referring to the chick behind the waterfall.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/6/2008 2:40:41 PM
|
|
|
DuckTalk
Posts: 228
Joined: 9/16/2008
From: A Duck Hole in Tennessee
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
I'll try, but I've learned that criticism of The Shack is futile at best. (This is fiction...this is fiction...this is fiction...) Not unlike any subject with differing points of view. The Shack does have some points that are debatable. All books do, including variations of the bible.
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
Anywho...the whole conversation about how God, Jesus and Holy Spirit submit to each other and to Mack is flat out not scriptural. It doesn't take into account that God is in charge, that Jesus submitted to the Father..... My take on the conversation about submission to one another is just another profound depiction of God's desire for a full & complete "relationship" with us. This intimate relationship of sharing should include all Three; The Father, The Son & the Holy Spirit as we can not submit to one completely without doing so with the other as well.
Therein lies the typical confusion over the Triune Godhead.....If the Trinity is in fact three in one and Jesus submitted to His father's will, was God not in essence submitting to Himself? If He did not submit to Himself, then we would be saying that the three are not one, but separate.
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
..... and I can't find anything in the bible about God submitting to me? You've gotta be kidding. This is mere semantics. The word "submission" has different meanings according to context. When used in context of our obligation to submit to God, then we are to acquiesce to God's will, to "surrender" all to Him. When used in context as I believe it was in The Shack, it means the love for the other is so great that one feels "servitude", "service to" or "humbleness" to the other. If this (humility & service to others) is a trait we are to display to one another, then I would think that this type of submissiveness (service, humbleness) would be a Godlike trait. Does God not act the way He instructs us to????? If we submit our love completely to Him, don't you think He would submit His love to us?
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
As for the judge, I was referring to the chick behind the waterfall.
Agreed. That one was somewhat strange.
Overall, I do see this book with God in charge. WHy do you think He's cooking dinner? We all know that the Mama is always at the top!  
< Message edited by misunderstoodduck -- 11/6/2008 5:18:37 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/6/2008 5:29:37 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4407
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Well, that's your take. I think the book contains enough bad theology that it serves only to confuse.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/6/2008 6:12:42 PM
|
|
|
CoeurdeLeon_
Posts: 9306
Joined: 9/4/2005
From: Inside my head
Status: offline
|
This is, I think, my original post in this thread, stellaluna. I'm in agreement with you about the judge for sure. What bothered me was the gnostic idea of Sophia/Wisdom being a real and equally important 'person' who is separate from God.
I also agree that it's not at all well-written.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon
Meh, not great. Certainly not "Pilgrim's Progress" for this age.
Sappy. Feel good. Heartwarming.
That's about it.
I wouldn't warn people away from it. Reading it won't hurt anyone. I just didn't think much of it.
I don't know if this was covered 'cause I didn't read all the long posts but, I was uncomfortable with the idea of "Sophia" being a separate entity. I know how it was explained away in the book, it just didn't sit well with me.
_____________________________
This morning I was awakened by the sound of purple
colliding with the fragrance of laughter.
Eutychus
New Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/6/2008 7:09:12 PM
|
|
|
thedivabrat
Posts: 694
Joined: 6/15/2008
From: North and South
Status: offline
|
I am reading The Shack now. Will finish it tonight. I like the book for what it is--a story--an easy read--not a theological treatise--just a book. And it may open some conversation with those who are uncomfortable with "official serious bible talk" and lead to some official serious bible talk. Who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/7/2008 8:13:05 PM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2072
Status: offline
|
quote:
Anywho...the whole conversation about how God, Jesus and Holy Spirit submit to each other and to Mack is flat out not scriptural. It doesn't take into account that God is in charge, that Jesus submitted to the Father and I can't find anything in the bible about God submitting to me? You've gotta be kidding.
"Have you noticed that even though you call me Lord and King, I have never really acted in that capacity with you? I've never taken control of your choices or forced you to do anything, even when what you were about to do was destructive or hurtful to yourself and others?" (Jesus)
"To force my will on you," Jesus replied, "is exactly what love does not do. Genuine relationships are marked by healthy submission even when your choices are not helpful or healthy."
"That's the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way." (Jesus)
Mack was surprised. "How can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?"
"Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don't want slaves to my will. I want brothers and sisters who share life with me." (Jesus) p. 145,146
This is the primary discussion in Young's book on the topic of submission. So let's use it to discuss this topic.
1. Jesus refers to not taking control or forcing us to do things? Is that unscriptural? How?
2. Man's view of authority is to 'lord it over others'. This was not Jesus' view of authority at all. He took the towel and served others. So how does Jesus' view of authority being about love and respect disagree with scripture?
3. And Jesus saying He does not desire slaves to His will but instead family members who share life with Him. How is this not scriptural?
I see this discussion (on submission that I've included above) to be very true to scripture. So I need your help to understand why you see it differently. LL
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/7/2008 10:05:04 PM
|
|
|
frazzledmom
Posts: 129
Joined: 7/4/2007
Status: offline
|
I read The Shack a few weeks ago. The resounding, repeated theme is that God wants an intimate personal relationship with us. I also keep coming back to the fact that God meets us and transforms us at our deepest point of pain. I also like the way forgiveness is explained. My main concern / lingering question is that once Mack was changed and transformed there was no mention or encouragement to grow within the context of a community of believers. That hole might encourage spiritual mavericks to continue on alone, but aside from that, I think there are some very powerful lessons to be learned and stagnant status quo beliefs to be challenged.
Frazzledmom
_____________________________
I hear, I forget.
I see, I remember.
I do, I understand.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/9/2008 1:16:07 AM
|
|
|
momsrule66
Posts: 3
Joined: 11/9/2008
Status: offline
|
I love literature, Christian and otherwise. Theologically, I'll give a little as long as it doesn't discount/contradict with the Word. I found way too many things in the Shack that differed/contradicted what Father says about himself in Scripture.
Seeing the Holy Spirit portrayed as a woman was a little uncomfortable for me, but Father uses the comparison of a hen and chicks in His desire to gather Israel to Himself, so, ok...
My first concerned arose from Mack’s discussion of the Indian legend with Missy. He intimates that he believes that the Great Spirit and the Christian God may be one and the same, that God may have appeared to the Native Americans as the Great Spirit and that the story of this Indian maid killing herself to save her people is on the level with Christ’s death on the cross for our sins.
Couple of problems with this. One, Christ did not commit suicide. He was murdered, albeit he allowed himself to be sacrificed. Two, the Great Spirit in Indian culture shares his place with other Gods. (I have other objections to the Native American Gods being equated with our Christian God, but I won’t digress. Suffice it to say, they are not the same.)
When Mack meets the female who claims to be “Papa” (God the Father), she makes the statement that Christ was not really separated from Father during his death on the cross, but that was just Christ’s perception – Christ was wrong!!!! Ok, so I guess Christ is fallible, not perfect??? Then how in the world does the death of an imperfect being cover my sins? The Bible is very clear that Christ was God in the flesh, without sin and without mistakes!!! Christ was separated from Father during his death on the cross, not out of any cruelty of abandonment, but because the sin of the world was placed on him. God is Holy and so this sin separated him for a time from his son.
I also object to Sarayu being used as a name for the Holy Spirit. In the Hindu religion, Sarayu is a river, and one of their thousands of Gods. Some Hindus try lump Christ and the Christian God with their thousands of Gods. I believe that the author’s choice of this name is a step (a Big One) in that direction.
If I want to recommend a book to strongly portray Father's love for us and His desire for intimacy in an everyday sort of way, I'll look to Ted Dekker's earlier works - A Man Called Blessed, Heaven Weeps, etc... They made me uncomfortable, too, but not because of wrong scripture. I just had a very hard time with how REAL they were.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/9/2008 3:46:48 PM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2072
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: momsrule66
I love literature, Christian and otherwise. Theologically, I'll give a little as long as it doesn't discount/contradict with the Word. I found way too many things in the Shack that differed/contradicted what Father says about himself in Scripture.
Thanks for participating in this discussion and for your honesty. I am a lover of Jesus and student of God's word so share in your desire for Him to be honored above all.
Seeing the Holy Spirit portrayed as a woman was a little uncomfortable for me, but Father uses the comparison of a hen and chicks in His desire to gather Israel to Himself, so, ok...
As Young's character, God, says in the book, ". . .I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or a woman, it's because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning."(p93)
We are idolatrous by nature and are continually trying to place God in a box and define Him in ways that please us rather than knowing Him as He is. Young is confronting idolatry just as God confronted it throughout the history of mankind.
My first concerned arose from Mack’s discussion of the Indian legend with Missy. He intimates that he believes that the Great Spirit and the Christian God may be one and the same, that God may have appeared to the Native Americans as the Great Spirit and that the story of this Indian maid killing herself to save her people is on the level with Christ’s death on the cross for our sins.
Or is Young illustrating exactly what God has said? He has also set eternity in their heart Ecc 3:11 and because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
I think Young is illustrating eternity being set in our hearts and our need for atonement---basic truths of God.
Couple of problems with this. One, Christ did not commit suicide. He was murdered, albeit he allowed himself to be sacrificed. Two, the Great Spirit in Indian culture shares his place with other Gods. (I have other objections to the Native American Gods being equated with our Christian God, but I won’t digress. Suffice it to say, they are not the same.)
When Mack meets the female who claims to be “Papa” (God the Father), she makes the statement that Christ was not really separated from Father during his death on the cross, but that was just Christ’s perception – Christ was wrong!!!! Ok, so I guess Christ is fallible, not perfect??? Then how in the world does the death of an imperfect being cover my sins? The Bible is very clear that Christ was God in the flesh, without sin and without mistakes!!! Christ was separated from Father during his death on the cross, not out of any cruelty of abandonment, but because the sin of the world was placed on him. God is Holy and so this sin separated him for a time from his son.
I distinctly remember this discussion as well and my first response was more like yours. No way. However I think we need to be careful and not put into the text or thoughts things that are not there. I highlighted your words 'without mistakes' because that is one of those things you've done in your mind (and which I can do as well) but is not necessarily true, KWIM?
But then I thought this is God. Can God be present and absent at the same time? Isn't it God's nature to never leave us or forsake us? No, He can't look upon sin. But just as Moses could not 'see' God but wanted to see His glory, God covered him with His hand and passed by and Moses saw God's goodness.
Jesus crys out from the cross "why have you forsaken me?". Does that mean God is not present? Or perhaps present but not looking on Jesus or covering him so He would not see?
I do not know. God does not tell us all of the specifics and we can assume things, mistakenly.
And this story is fiction. Every detail does not and is not true. But this is one of the areas I've thought long and hard about because of Young's story.
I also object to Sarayu being used as a name for the Holy Spirit. In the Hindu religion, Sarayu is a river, and one of their thousands of Gods. Some Hindus try lump Christ and the Christian God with their thousands of Gods. I believe that the author’s choice of this name is a step (a Big One) in that direction.
But Jesus Himself used a river of living water to describe Himself and the person of the Holy Spirit. If we proceed down this kind of path of criticism where we pick out words, thoughts, ideas, and concepts because of associations with wrong things, I think God would find it mighty difficult to communicate to us much of anything because ALL words have been used wrongly.
If I want to recommend a book to strongly portray Father's love for us and His desire for intimacy in an everyday sort of way, I'll look to Ted Dekker's earlier works - A Man Called Blessed, Heaven Weeps, etc... They made me uncomfortable, too, but not because of wrong scripture. I just had a very hard time with how REAL they were.
I'm not familiar with Ted Dekker's works and, in general, fiction is not my forte. I enjoy Francine Rivers fiction but most is Christian fluff and not very truthful and leaves me sickened.
I think Young did an excellent job of talking about God and His desire to commune with us, share intimate communion with us. It is a tough concept to show and we in the church have had alot of 'conditioning' that has trained us to reject the very heart of God just as the pharisees did. Young's discussion of authority (and our misunderstanding of authority) is at the heart of all of this.
Anyway, I'm enjoying 'talking' with you (and others) about these important thoughts. So continue to talk away. I'm listening.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/9/2008 6:01:46 PM
|
|
|
Focusing
Posts: 6014
Status: offline
|
I enjoyed the book. I was especially touched during the chapter "A Morning of Sorrows" where Papa is discussing forgiveness.
"Forgiveness is not about forgetting, Mack. It is about letting go of another person's throat." (p224)
and "Forgiveness does not establish relationship." (p225)
I believe it's important to realize this, and I think that was an important issue in the book. The book in it's entirety may not be sound theology (this is work of fiction), but I think it discussed forgiveness in a way many people can understand.
_____________________________
Instead of a gem, or even a flower, we should cast the gift of a loving thought into the heart of a friend. That would be giving as the angels give.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/9/2008 6:56:52 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4407
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Meh. I realize it's fiction, but I don't take lightly putting words into God's mouth and then trying to justify them with His Word. I can do the same thing with any novel.
I'm finding more and more of my friends have read it and it hasn't put a single one of them on a path to find Jesus. In fact, most of them are able to use it to justify whatever life they are living. I also have very little respect for the author.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/9/2008 7:13:00 PM
|
|
|
Focusing
Posts: 6014
Status: offline
|
Just out of curiosity ... why would you bother reading a book if you have little respect for the author?
_____________________________
Instead of a gem, or even a flower, we should cast the gift of a loving thought into the heart of a friend. That would be giving as the angels give.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/9/2008 7:20:43 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4407
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I didn't know anything about him until after I read the book.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/9/2008 7:23:08 PM
|
|
|
Focusing
Posts: 6014
Status: offline
|
Ah ... I was just wondering. There are some authors I have no desire to read, no matter how many great reviews their work gets.
_____________________________
Instead of a gem, or even a flower, we should cast the gift of a loving thought into the heart of a friend. That would be giving as the angels give.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/10/2008 2:23:27 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2120
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
I'm sorry I didn't post in this thread sooner, I didn't know this book existed until yesterday. What disturbs me most about this book is that it aims straight at the very character and nature of God, and proceeds to get it horribly horribly wrong. Most Christians have not done any study on trinitarian doctrine, at least not any study worth anything, and having read this thread I see that holds true here as well. There is a profound amount of misunderstanding on trinitarian doctrine.
quote:
ORIGINAL: groovymovieman
The fact that there isn't a hierarchy in the trinity because their is love for one another.
Absolutely FALSE!
1Corinthians 15:28
When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
1 Corinthians 3:23
and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.
There most certainly is hierarchy to the triune God.
quote:
ORIGINAL: floydette
He isn't any of these things. However he often "acts" as a father,
God doesn't just act as Father. When we say that God is Father and Son that is NOT a metaphor.
John 3:16,18
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
...
18"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 1:18
18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
1 John 4:9
9By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
When the Bible says that the Son was begotten of the Father, that is not a metaphor. The Son really is the Son of the Father. The Son is "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father." This is Christian belief, there is no other truth. God is greater than we are. If we look at earthly father/son relationships, and see commonality with God's Father/Son relationship, then it is the earthly relationship that is the metaphor. God's Father/Son relationship came first, because it is an eternal relationship. Before creation was created, God was already Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
quote:
He is not necessarily portrayed with a good sense of humor, in scripture,
If you think this is true, you should really go back through scripture again looking for all the humor, especially puns. From what I've read, the original Hebrew in the OT contains even more humor that doesn't come through in English translations.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon
Since the Trinity is a mystery that none of us can completely fathom, I'd say, generally and within reason, that one person's idea of it is just as good as any other. All we can really do is try to imagine it in a way that makes sense to us. "The Shack's" way didn't do anything for me but I don't consider it abuse or heresy.
The love of God is a mystery that none of us can completely fathom. That does not mean that "one person's idea of it is just as good as any other." Love is not just a vague concept for us to "imagine in a way that makes sense to us." If someone came out saying that love is about jealousy and that love is all about boasting, we could definitively say that they are wrong because, even though we do not know everything there is to know about love, we know what God has taught us.
It is the same for God's triune nature. We cannot fully grasp God, but we can know what God has declared to be true about Himself. There are things we know, absolutely and for certain, about God's triune nature. There are truths about the character and nature of God that we can declare with confidence.
quote:
ORIGINAL: peace2008
If this book encourages anyone to stray from the faith or misunderstand the WORD, there must be/have been some really serious doubts to begin with.
This gets back to one of the points I started my post with. Most Christians have not studied trinitarian doctrine. They have not studied scripture to see what God says about His own nature and being. Most times they haven't studied this because people have told them that it's pointless because they won't be able to understand it anyway, that the Bible isn't clear on the issue. Those are very big lies that far too many Christians have swallowed without even thinking about it. This book is attacking a weak point in Christian teaching. Not a weak point in what the Bible teaches, mind you, but an area where far too many Christians have completely failed to study.
quote:
ORIGINAL: "The Shack" (quoted by TammyIs Blessed0
pg 94
Why is there such an emphasis on you being a Father? I mean, it seems to be the way you most reveal yourself.
there are many reasons for that, and some of them go very deep. Let me say for now that we knew once the Creation was broken, true fathering would be much more lacking than mothering. Don't misunderstand me, both are needed - but an emphasis on fathering is necessary because of the enormity of its absence.
Wow, talk about bad bad bad bad theology. First, God knew creation would be broken before He created it. God already had the sacrifice of Jesus Christ ready before the foundations of the world. Second, it implies that God chose to be "father" because that's what creation needed. This is false! God was Father, Son and Holy Spirit before creation existed. It is part of His eternal nature, who HE IS.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DWinMadison
At least if you have issues with it, you could explain to a younger brother or sister the REAL story of the Trinity.
That would be better advice if more Christians actually knew enough about trinitarian doctrine, and where in scripture it is laid out, to be able to tell someone the real story.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tea-Tea
One thing I really like about the book is it points us to relationship, not religion.
This may be a whole 'nother thread, but relationship without religion is just as worthless as religion without relationship. Religion is defined by the dictionary as "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices" and "the practice of religious beliefs" among other things. There can be no profitable relationship with God without belief in what He has set out in scripture, and it's specific truths, or without putting those beliefs into practice. There is no reason to unfairly define "religion" as opposed to being a true follower of Jesus Christ.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Liveloved
ChristopherJ,
Yet, this is a direct quote from I Cor 6:12 where the Apostle Paul says, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything."
There is debate over how this passage is to be taken. Some believe that Paul is quoting another author, and countering him. The other author says "All things are lawful for me" and which Paul then counters. Certainly that fits with
1Cor 6:13
13Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body.
and
James 1:25
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.
God's perfect law abides still. There is still rule and order. There are things that are right and there are things that are wrong. There is rule, and God is the ruler.
quote:
ORIGINAL: misunderstoodduck
Does this book describe the love of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit incorrectly?
I haven't even read the book yet, but just from quotes I can say that it most certainly does. The idea that the Father is not really and truly in authority over the Son violates what scripture teaches about the economic nature of the trinity, and invalidates anything "The Shack"'s author says about the love that exists between them based on that lack of authority.
quote:
Therein lies the typical confusion over the Triune Godhead.....If the Trinity is in fact three in one and Jesus submitted to His father's will, was God not in essence submitting to Himself? If He did not submit to Himself, then we would be saying that the three are not one, but separate.
You are the one who is confused over trinitarian doctrine. God submitted to God, but the Son is not the Father. The Father did not submit to Himself. The Son did not submit to Himself. The Son submitted to the Father. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are indeed one, but they are also clearly distinguished from one another by scripture.
quote:
If we submit our love completely to Him, don't you think He would submit His love to us?
No. God's love for us will never be based on us, but always on His character. God's actions towards us will always be based on His perfection, and not on our demands or expectations. God's love for us is not in submission to us, but in authority over us.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Liveloved (apparently quoting "The Shack")
"That's the beauty you see in my relationship with Abba and Sarayu. We are indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be. Papa is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way."
This is heresy. Complete and total heresy. If love were never about authority, then scripture could never say:
2 Corinthians 10:8
For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed of it.
2 Corinthians 13:10
This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.
God gave Paul authority for building up, if that is not a loving act, then I don't know what is.
Titus 2:15
These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.
If love were never about authority, then there would be no need to encourage with authority. Even rebuking is done in love, and authority.
Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
If the submission that we have to God is not about authority, then Jesus Christ would not need authority forevermore.
As to obedience:
Romans 1:5
through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake,
Faith brings obedience.
Romans 6:16
Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
Obedience results in Righteousness.
quote:
ORIGINAL: momsrule66
When Mack meets the female who claims to be “Papa” (God the Father), she makes the statement that Christ was not really separated from Father during his death on the cross, but that was just Christ’s perception – Christ was wrong!!!! Ok, so I guess Christ is fallible, not perfect??? Then how in the world does the death of an imperfect being cover my sins? The Bible is very clear that Christ was God in the flesh, without sin and without mistakes!!! Christ was separated from Father during his death on the cross, not out of any cruelty of abandonment, but because the sin of the world was placed on him. God is Holy and so this sin separated him for a time from his son.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Liveloved
But then I thought this is God. Can God be present and absent at the same time? Isn't it God's nature to never leave us or forsake us? No, He can't look upon sin. But just as Moses could not 'see' God but wanted to see His glory, God covered him with His hand and passed by and Moses saw God's goodness.
Jesus crys out from the cross "why have you forsaken me?". Does that mean God is not present? Or perhaps present but not looking on Jesus or covering him so He would not see?
Young has seen fit to claim that Jesus Christ was mistaken in His stament on the cross. That is blasphemy. Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Live. For Him to speak a falsehood is unthinkable. When Jesus Christ said that the Father forsake Him on the cross, that was true. Absolutely. Not a matter of perception. However, we need to have a definition of "forsaken" that matches the Biblical definition, we cannot allow any preconceptions of what the word means to to color our understanding of scripture.
The forsaking that Jesus Christ endured on the cross was the full extent of God's wrath towards sin. (reference, Matt 26:39 and Rev 14:10 among many others) All the punishment that sin deserves was visited upon the Son while He was on the cross. All of the wrath of the Father against the sin of man was poured out upon the Son, so that those who have faith will not have to suffer being forsaken.
quote:
And this story is fiction. Every detail does not and is not true.
When it comes to the character and nature of God, every detail should be true. Even if we allow for small errors, due to simply being human, "The Shack" makes grievious error in it's depiction of who God is, when compared to who God is revealed to be in scripture.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/10/2008 11:33:25 PM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2072
Status: offline
|
quote:
figmentPez
I haven't even read the book yet
I think this is exactly what Jesus was addressing when He said, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." When we judge a book or a person without reading it or getting to know them, we are judging by appearance.
When you snatch a word, a thought, an act and remove it from the context and the meaning of the person who is speaking or acting, we are committing a great evil. To judge what Young has said or God as portrayed by Young in this book without even having read the book is not love.
I would challenge you to read Young's book for yourself.
< Message edited by Liveloved -- 11/11/2008 11:25:43 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/11/2008 12:14:38 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 4407
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I don't personally think it has anything to do with Jesus. I think it has to do with a wishy-washy god that doesn't judge and who believes sin (which is never defined) is its own punishment. Who wouldn't embrace that? You don't have to believe in Jesus to get on board with that sort of "theology."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/11/2008 1:16:50 PM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2072
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
I don't personally think it has anything to do with Jesus. I think it has to do with a wishy-washy god that doesn't judge and who believes sin (which is never defined) is its own punishment. Who wouldn't embrace that? You don't have to believe in Jesus to get on board with that sort of "theology."
Sin is clearly defined, stellaluna, in Young's book. It is defined as 'independence'. And isn't that what sin is? The original sin? All sin really? Thinking we know better than God? and therefore do not need Him, can live independently rather than being truly and fully dependent on Him?
And judgment? Judgment is about setting things right. That's a direct quote from Young's book.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "The Shack" - 11/11/2008 4:50:30 PM
|
|
|
Liveloved
Posts: 2072
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes. He did correct their errors. See Mark 7 or Luke 11: 14-28 for a couple of quick examples. Would you care to show my supposed errors and correct them with scripture?
You left out part of my quote, figmentPez. It was a most important part. A most important point as well. The Apostle Paul described himself as blameless as to the righteousness which is in the Law!
Wow! Would I get into a theological argument with one like the Apostle Paul prior to his conversion? He was found blameless! He knew the doctrine. It was not a battle of words.
You are obviously very knowledgable as well. I do not know you. I do not know your heart. I am not pretending to judge you. Nor do I want to.
But I do invite you to read the book for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
And to respond to something stellaluna said in an earlier post, it really is all about Jesus.
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
