Now we command you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is (not) walking . . . in accord with the tradition you received from us. As for you, do not grow weary in doing good" (II Thessalonians 3:6,13).
One can't help but imagine what the disciples saw and felt when they observed Jesus move among sinners. From the adulteress women at the well, to the pagan tax collector hiding in the trees, Jesus taught the early disciples the power of transforming love. He himself declared, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." (John 13:35). It would seem that this tradition of loving people through unselfishly doing that which is good for others is the very mark of Jesus in us. Paul wrote to young Timothy and exhorted him to not associate with those Christians who used people for their own selfish purposes and who were filled with indulgent idleness. This kind of behavior is the opposite of the tradition which Timothy received from the early followers of Jesus. It's interesting to note that the Apostle Paul's concern for Timothy is not that he keep away from those brothers teaching differently, but from those brothers walking differently. Or, to put it in John's language, the world will know that we are Christians not by what we say but by how we love.
The Book "The Shack"
In 2008 I read Paul Young's book The Shack. It came recommended to me by my wife, my mother and my sister, all of whom shared with me the book "rocked their world." I read the book, and though I enjoyed it, it was not life changing for me. My wife would later tell me that for years she has heard me preach on the Father's unconditional love for His people - an eternal, personal and unrelenting love - so she felt the book didn't affect me deeply because it simply presented in different form the very core of my own belief system. She, of course, was right. My belief in God's unchanging love for me - a love that precedes Creation, my conversion, and carries me to and through eternity - is the very basis of my freedom and joy. Memorizing Psalm 139 when a child and reading God's Everlasting Love for His Elect by John Gill as a teenager, solidified in my heart and mind the truth of God's deep, personal and everlasting love for me.However, tens of millions of sinners do not live in the joy of knowing God's love for their souls. Paul Young, author of The Shack, had a hard time believing God loved him from early in his childhood. The son of Christian Missionary Alliance missionaries in Indonesia, Paul was raised by native cannibals who repeatedly, forcibly and secretly molested him before he was six years of age. Combine that abuse with an angry natural father who taught Paul by His words and actions that God punishes people for their religious non-performance, Paul's image of God, even after coming to faith in Jesus, was that of a distant deity more interested in punishment than a loving Papa enjoying personal relationships.
In The Shack, Paul has used a creative metaphor to present "Papa," or God the Father, as the loving, kind and good Heavenly Father revealed to us in Scripture. Some have expressed outrage that Papa is metaphorically presented in Young's book as a loving African-American woman, as if Young literally believes God the Father is a loving, large black woman. Paul Young's metaphor of God the Father no more bothers me than David portraying God as a big bird ("hide me under the shadow of Thy wings" Psalm 17:8), or C.S. Lewis' imagery of God being "a lion" in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Intuitively I knew after reading The Shack that members of Emmanuel Baptist Church who have heard me preach for years on the love of God for His people would benefit from hearing Paul Young himself.
Paul Young at Emmanuel, Enid, April 4-5, 2009
Last weekend's services at Emmanuel, Enid with guest speaker Paul Young possessed more of the Spirit's gifts of renewal, cleansing and conversion than any weekend I can remember in twenty-five years of pastoral ministry. Several hundred gathered on Saturday night, then again in three services on Sunday morning, and for one final service on Sunday night. The gospel - the good news - was shared in all the services. Men for whom we have prayed for a long time came to faith in Jesus, some of whom will be baptized this Sunday. Addicts publicly expressed their choice to let go of their addictions and turn to God our Heavenly Father through trusting the work of Jesus for their souls. People sat for two hours, without moving, hearing gripping accounts from both Scripture and life of how Jesus sets captives free.
I came into the weekend believing Paul Young's view of the Trinity may be his weak point, but after all four services I now believe Paul Young's view of the Trinity is his strong point. One of the finest messages I have ever heard, a message saturated with the truth of Scripture, was preached in the 8:30 a.m. morning worship service. His explanation of the love relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity, all of whom possess the full and equal essence of the eternal Deity, is the foundation for Young's belief that the Father only does what He does out of a heart of love for relationship. We are putting all six hours of teaching on six CD's in a CD notebook, including six MP3 files, which will be available at our cost - $25.00. You may order by calling (580-237-0602).
Fellowship Supercedes Theological Differences
Paul Young believes that Papa was in Christ reconciling the world (i.e. "every single human being") to Himself. It is no secret that I believe the biblical word "world" does not encompass every single human being without exception, but rather an innumerable company of sinners from every tribe, every kindred, every nation and every family. In this Paul and I would differ. Yet, Paul agrees with me that the God's redemption of sinners is so powerful at the cross, that nothing negates the love of God the Father toward those for whom He lovingly sent His only begotten Son to die. We simply differ over whether those sinners God chooses to enter into a redeeming love relationship include every single sinner who has ever lived or an innumerable company of particular sinners whom God has chosen to redeem.
Some are now calling Paul a universalist. Not so. Paul believes in hell, but he believes hell cannot be comprehended apart from God's love. How God can eternally love people who experience His wrath in hell is explained by Paul using different human analogies which you can hear if you listen to the CD's. It is Paul's hope that every man will one day experience the love of God. Paul differs with me not in affirming the truth that God loves every human being, for I believe the Father does, but in my belief that God the Father has a special, distinguishing, redeeming love for particular sinners. For example, I might tell you that "I love my wife" and then tell you that "I love your wife." But I can guarantee you that I don't love your wife in the same manner in which I love my wife. Likewise, there is a Bride for the Trinity, and she is loved by God with a special, eternal and unconditional love, and the Father has done everything for this Bride to effectually bring to pass her redemption. Paul and I agree that this Bride of Christ is composed of those for whom Christ died - we just disagree that Christ died in the stead of every human being without exception.
Ironically, we both share in common a strong resistance to the legalism of religion. All religions, even some religionists of the Southern Baptist variety, tell you that you must do something to earn the love of God. But the good news of the gospel is that God's love cannot be earned, it rises from His heart of love like an artesian spring, needed nothing to draw it out. To trust and experience God's unconditional love, no matter one's earthly condition, is the basis for true freedom and joy. More importantly, when one's heart is full of the love of God, it overflows with love for others. I came away from this weekend not changing my theology of particular redemption one iota, but through Paul's life and message, recommitted to love every single sinner with whom I come in contact - from the hardest hearted sinner to the one who professes to be my most profound enemy.
Paul Young loves sinners like Jesus loves sinners. Paul signed hundreds of books this weekend, and after he signed each book with a unique personal message, Paul would then personally embrace the person. The lines would often stretch for hours, but Paul was never in a rush. Every single person was treated as a most important person. One could learn a great deal about the hurt sin causes and the healing Jesus brings by simply observing the tearful hugs and listening to soul wrenching conversations people had with Paul Young. Unlike many in the professionally religious world who want the admiration of others, Paul was genuinely humble, shockingly transparent (publicly confessing his own failures) and deeply concerned for the healing needed in the souls of others.
An Illustration of the Power of God's Love
One of our young ladies at Emmanuel has probably been through as much hurt as Paul. She is now seventeen. When she was ten, her father was killed with a shotgun by her mother and her mother's boyfriend. Our church member was then kidnapped along with her brother and taken to Mexico by her mother and her mother's lover the day of her father's funeral. Police eventually caught the murderer and she now sits on death row in Oklahoma. It has been difficult for our seventeen year old church member to trust adults, but as I told Paul her story and watched as he signed her book, whispered words of encouragement in her ear, and then give her a warm and affectionate embrace, it was evident that our church member had come to understand that the love of God cannot be measured by the absence of painful events or the abundance of temporal blessings in our lives. The message got through to this young lady, as evidenced by her tears and her willingess to converse with a strange adult man for the first time in over a decade, that God loves us the way we are and is powerful enough to deal with the ugly and destructive junk in our lives caused by sin.
Stories like this could be repeated over and over again from this past weekend, but because of time I wish to close this short review of Paul Young and his book. It has not been my desire in this post to answer every question you might have about The Shack, nor has it been my desire to defend the author - God is quite capable of doing both for you and Paul Young respectively. My desire is to give a modern illustration of applying the teaching of the Apostle Paul to young Timothy in the verse placed at the top of this post (II Thessalonians 3:6).
Some have suggested I should have "kept away" from Paul Young. Some Southern Baptists have volunteered that Paul Young should never have been invited to Emmanuel to speak. They suggest that he is teaching heresy in his Christian fiction book. I, however, will follow the instructions of the Apostle Paul. I will maintain a friendship and cooperation with my brother in Christ, Paul Young, because he practices the ancient tradition of the fathers of our faith - he genuinely loves sinners.
And I will keep away from those brothers who don't practice this love - no matter how much they agree with me theologically.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
586 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 586 Newer› Newest»I have no interest in the Shack. I don't talk about it, think about it, or really care that much about it. I find the topic, the book's concept and all the discussion in credibly boring.
But I like all of you guys and am interested in what you have to say - thus, I can't look away!!
I have read all of these comments, and am even less interested in reading the book or hearing the author speak than I was before this post.
I feel great sympathy for the author's upbringing, at least as it's presented here. Raised around Cannibals who molested him! Yuck!! Poor guy.
I am hoping, however, that he doesn't team up with Frankie Shaffer and then go on the Bill Moyers program for a sit down.
I have said before that I don't mind that LifeWay sells the book and I am glad that LifeWay puts the book in its Read with Discernment program. I am still of that opinion, and don't really care to dialogue about that either.
I did read the post about Michael Youseff's (sp?) comments. If the book promotes the things that he say it does, then the book is seriously flawed theologically. But I don't think flawed theology is in doubt.
Even the people who support the book appear to concede that the book is not theologically correct on many points, but to them that's no big deal because the book is and should be understood as fiction.
Still, I appreciate the efforts of those commenting who have taken the effort to present the theological concerns, even though they have been treated with scorn.
My final comment is that this entire thing reminds me of the "Oh, God" movie with George Burns and John Denver.
It appears to be basically the same thing with a 30 year update on the characters to catch the current zeitgeist.
I guess that's why the whole thing bores me so much. I generally dislike remakes.
I predict this "God inhabits Man, in an unexpected and irreverent way, to prove a larger point" genre will surface again in about another 30 years.
We can all predict who, or what type of person, will be God in that one. That would be a fun.
I am shooting for an increased influence in the animal rights world and belief that the next person to play God may not be a person at all. Maybe a dog or cat. We'll just have to see.
If life expectancy tables are around, I may very well be here - barely.
Louis
TRINITARIAN CONCEPTS:
" The basic understanding of the Trinitarian concepts of
co-inherence and perichoresis:
Put simply, the perichoresis is the eternal infinite loving flow of person, idea and virtue that exists between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each fully receiving and giving of the other.
Co-inherence is the fact that all three members of the Trinity inhere or exist within each other."
Off Topic to this post, but not to this blog:
Jax News > Unmasked blogger blames First Baptist, Sheriff's Office
A subpoena is used to obtain critic's identity from Google
But Brunson said Rich’s persistent criticism over nearly two years indicates the writer has an “obsessive compulsive problem” and is “not very stable at all,” Brunson said.
“What you’re dealing with is a sociopath,” Brunson said.
“The imbalance is him refusing to address the concerns of his congregation,” Rich said of Brunson’s comments. Rich said his blog gets about 1,000 hits a day and that he regularly hears from people who agree with his criticisms but are afraid to come forward.
“He’s been trying to convince his administration that I am some kind of a nut,” he said. “I am not a nut … and the things I have raised on the blog are valid concerns.”
The Sheriff’s Office and church officials defended the complaint and investigation into Rich’s blog, which Hinson concluded Nov. 13.
Undersheriff Frank Mackesy said Hinson’s role posed no conflict of interest because his duties include handling possible threats against the city’s large religious institutions.
Rich said he was never contacted by Hinson. He learned of the investigation well after the church notified him Nov. 28 he had been identified as the blog’s author.
Two additional bloggers investigated by Hinson said they were also not contacted. They learned of the probe in middle or late March. Their blogs do not focus on First Baptist.
Mackesy said the three bloggers didn’t need to be contacted because Hinson uncovered nothing criminal.
“The detective hasn’t done anything wrong,” he said.
It was also proper for Hinson to provide First Baptist’s leadership with Rich’s identity despite finding no criminal evidence, Mackesy said, so it could take whatever internal action it felt necessary for its own safety.
“I’d be disappointed in the detective if [he] didn’t do it,” he said.
-----------------------------------
Fbc Jax Watchdog > The Story of the Watchdog Blog - Part 1
My initial comment on the article: how sad to read the depths that Mac Brunson has sunk to. A pastor, a man supposedly called by God Himself to love and shepherd Christians, that he would unequivocally declare to a news reporter that I, one of his sheep until just recently, am "obsessive compulsive", and that I am "not stable at all", and the real humdinger that "What you're dealing with here is sociopath". Mac suddenly knows my mental state, when he has never met me, my wife, or my kids. Not one single conversation with the man and he declares me to be a sociopath. People who know me at FBC Jax and my new church and elsewhere know this is not true and just a pathetic attempt by Mac to attack the credibility of one of his critics. The sad truth is that Mac telling a news reporter this lie about one of his sheep speaks more to Mac's lack of character and lack of a pastor's heart than it does my mental state. Thank you, pastor, who never met me or my wife or my kids - for lying about me to Jeff Brumley - but I do forgive you, brother.
-----------------------------------
I do want to clarify for the record: I did not seek to put this in the media. I believe Jeff Brumley found my name out by the only piece of information that was a public record with my name on it relative to this case: the 12/10/08 trespass warnings filed with the JSO against me and my wife. He contacted me, and when he told me he was going to do a story on this from the angle of JSO's involvement, I felt it right to meet with Jeff and tell him our side of the story. I believe he did a very complete, fair job of reporting this story.
The above from the comment of WD from here.
Louis, if you don't have any interest in 'The Shack', can we assume that you have chosen not to read it but to comment on it instead?
?
It's a good read, but it is fiction. If you are not sophisticated enough to understand the literary devices of allegory, imagery, and personification; you may not be able to appreciate the book, however.
Did you see the archived speeches of Paul Young?
Do you also have an interest in seeing the promulgation of the 'eternal subordination' of Christ to the Father, as now being fostered by the B.I. leadership?
Lots of questions.
Anon:
I note that you did not care for my comment.
Louis
Thy Peace:
Just read the newspaper article about the Dog. You can read my comment on his blog.
Louis
That's nice. I think I got deleted for saying you all are too hard on Robert, who is simply proving that some of you dont like anyone messing with this book.
Maybe it was more the fact that no one wants to answer to Young's views on Jesus and the Cross.
It is Easter, good time to think about it.
So Calvinists are not only Jansenists but also Nestorians.
Wow.
Louis, your original comment was confusing. Just asked for some clarification. Sorry to come across negatively.
QUESTIONS:
1. Was Jesus God?
2. Did Jesus have two natures,
each one completely separate
from the other?
3. Is that how only the man Jesus
died on the cross and not the
God, Jesus?
4. What happened to the God Jesus
part during the crucifixion?
5. When Jesus arose from the dead,
was it just the man Jesus?
6. When Jesus went to heaven, is
both the man Jesus and the
god Jesus, or just the God Jesus
HELP NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND
Anon:
Forgot to ask you.
Whom or what do you think will represent God when this genre returns?
Louis
Anon:
Yes. I thought my comment spoke for itself.
I don't think that I made a substantive comment about the book, except from what I have read in the comments.
I think everyone says it has some bad theology in it. Some are really bothered by that to the extent that it should not read, let alone sold by LifeWay. Others are not bothered by it because of its fictional nature.
I have merely accepted these comments and made observations. That's all.
Weeks ago when this topic came up, Robert kept trying to get me to read up on it and such, and others apparently want me to go and read the book so that I can have better comments based on first hand knowledge.
I am not going to read the book. I just don't care about it.
Based on the discussion I have read here, the book really does remind me of the movie "Oh, God" with George Burns. Did you see that movie when it came out? (I don't know how old you are). I did.
The arguments about that movie at the time sound just like what I have read here.
Louis
PP, Mac B. , and the Holy Goat
Just do not understand people who are so critical of a book that they have not read.
Enough said really ....True Christians will reject The Shack, lukewarm,carnal hypocritical "christians" will see nothing wrong with the above critique, and still go ahead and buy the book.
keyword......ritical
You-know-who gets paid to dis the book.
Robert:
How do you draw conclusions about a book you have not even read? Do you let other people do your thinking for you?
How about we go ahead and love sinners and keep the faith once delivered to the saints?
It's not one against the other, Wade. It's both / and.
It's not pharisaical to hold to truth as revealed in God's word while embracing sinners with Christ's love.
The "walking" is a walking in love to be sure: Love truth, love God, love sinners, love the saints.
Jesus - full of grace & truth - not either / or.
Yes, I have read The Shack completely...just in case anyone wondered.
"Enough said really ....True Christians will reject The Shack, lukewarm,carnal hypocritical "christians" will see nothing wrong with the above critique, and still go ahead and buy the book."
Gee, after all these years, it's nice to finally know what kind of "Christian" I am.
:)
The greatest sin of the Corinth church was not sexual immorality, law suits, or even the feasts. Its was dividing up the church into types of christians by level of superiority. There are non-essentials that while are worth contending for should not be worth dividing over. If i can date a pentecostal arminian i think I can give enough grace to those who think the shaft is ok.
New BBC Open Forum > Who's really the sociopath here?
It was also proper for Hinson to provide First Baptist's leadership with Rich's identity despite finding no criminal evidence, Mackesy said, so it could take whatever internal action it felt necessary for its own safety.
"I'd be disappointed in the detective if [he] didn't do it," he said.
* Okay, so let me get this straight. The JSO finds NO evidence of any criminal activity, but yet they thought it was appropriate to reveal Watchdog's personal information to FBC Jax's "leadership" so they could take whatever action necessary for their "safety." What "internal action" did they think was deemed necessary at that point? Trespass orders against the man and his wife? Why not go all the way and issue three little trespass orders against their children? Why did the announcement and reading of the infamous "whereas" resolution which FBC Jax proudly displays on their website (or here should it mysteriously disappear) never mention Thomas Rich's name? Were they concerned they might have targeted the wrong person? Did they have enough brain cells still working to realize that Thomas Rich could sue the pants off them?
But Brunson said Rich's persistent criticism over nearly two years indicates the writer has an "obsessive compulsive problem" and is "not very stable at all," Brunson said.
"What you're dealing with is a sociopath," Brunson said.
* I think this statement speaks much more about Brunson's own mental state than that of the Watchdog.
"The imbalance is him refusing to address the concerns of his congregation," Rich said of Brunson's comments. Rich said his blog gets about 1,000 hits a day and that he regularly hears from people who agree with his criticisms but are afraid to come forward.
* I've heard the same from Bellevue members (mostly former members). It's all about money and power, and if they even perceive a threat to either, they will try to destroy you.
Wade,
I thought Roman Catholicism had the only franchise on infallibility. As I read the comments on your blog I'm amazed at the number of infallible, spiritual policemen you have breathing down your neck.
a couple of points!
That quote was not mine.....in fairness
I dont completely agree withthe spirit of it.
I put it out that more just to mess with people!
Grigs....Honestly I do believe this is a situation where you must divide over error before you unite in truth. If you cant agree on penal substitution what do have in common.
finally Tom Parker.....I have stated it many times..yes I have read the book..although I did not buy it and HATE
the fact that Lifeway sells it.
Robert from Geneva
the author has not denied penal-sub. atonement to my knowledge.
Grigs, he sure did.
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2009/03/william-young-author-of-the-shack-outright-denies-the-penal-substitutionary-atonement.html
I will not waste my time and listen to a crazy ultra- right wing lutheran who takes everything out of context. And before you call me a liberal emergetnt let me mention that I am a Michael Horton lovin, Joel beeke readin reformed writting machine. That's the problem with people today its too easy to get a podcast made and just shout your opinions with out any boundaries or accountability. And there is such thing as slander and I think persons like him need to remember that. And fyi I have listened to that show and if you find the original recording (i.e. primary source) its not as strong as I would like to to be however it is not heretical. And denying penal-sub. atonement is not heresy its false doctrine. Heresy by deffinition is a belief that goes against the teaching of the ecumenical councils (that is how it has been historically defined).
Grigs and Robert,
Do you both believe in
the Nestorian Heresy of the 5th Century: God did not die on the Cross?
What say you both?
What did Calvin say about it?
Grigs,
I assume you know that the original Interview was done by kendall adams ie the kendall here.
Maybe even the person you were just talking too.
The book is herey and I in the process of collecting names from missionaries who agree with that conclusion....almost 200 so far....all from mission agencies in irian jaya
Robert from Geneva
Grigs
http://alwaysreformingtoscripture.blogspot.com/
1. I have already said that God did not die on the cross. I have made it clear that Calvin's posistion as well as mine (and Norman Geisler's for that matter) is that Jesus as God did not yet as man he did.
2. What ecumenical council denounced the beliefs OF THE AUTHOR not the book
That sounds like a Bill Clinton statement.I dont believe you can compartmentalize the two.(the book and the author). The marketers want you to do that sometimes....although not when you are feeling his pain.
So Grigs you beieve in the Nestorian heresy. Does Robert?
Do all Calvinists believe this Nestorian thing: God did not die on the Cross?
Grigs, so Jesus is not God for you.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Grigs:
Patripassionism
Patripassionism is a theological error dealing with the Godhead which states that the Father became incarnate, was born, suffered, and died on the cross. Hence the Father's (patri) passion (suffer) on the cross.
This is an error because we know that Jesus spoke to the person of the Father and that it was Jesus who went to the cross. If the father and son are the same person that how is it possible for the father and son to speak to one another and have separate wills? It is not. Therefore, the doctrine of patripassionism is incorrect and heretical.
carm
The Father are the Son are one in essence but different in person. It was the son who was incarnated. To deny that the father and the son are two separate pesons is to be a heretic by Nicene and the athanasious (spchk) creed. The will refers to the specific mission of saving the elect not the will in the Edwarsian sense of the mechanism that reflects our affections and desires and makes the choice.
From AP Newswire:
"Catholics angered after Obama names gay rights advocate Harry Knox to faith-based advisory council."
How about it all you catholics?
Anon,
Dont confuse Natures and Persons
Nestorianism
Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title "Mother of God." He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human.
Nestorius was deposed as Patriarch and sent to Antioch, then Arabia, and then Egypt. Nestorianism survived until around 1300.
The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.
CARM.ORG
Did God die on the cross or not?
If yes, Jesus was God.
If no, Jesus was not God.
If Jesus is not God, are we saved?
Grigs said " I have already said that God did not die on the cross. I have made it clear that Calvin's posistion as well as mine "
Is this Robert's teaching, too?
Do all Calvinists believe that Jesus is not God?
Jesus as God never died. Jesus as man did die.
If Jesus is not God, are we saved? If Jesus is not God, we cannot be saved. If he was not completely human we could not be saved.
Is the hypostatic union in the Bible? yes. It is the man made name given to a doctrine that is necessary to explain two truths clearly taught in Scripture: That God the Son added humanity to his personage.
If you sir or ma'am had any courage and sense of accountability you would not post Anonymousy to get away with twisting person's words. Please see my previous comments on the nature of Christ. It is classic Orthodox (more or less), roman catholic, Calvinistic, Arminian ,ect.. theology that Jesus is fully man and fully God. To deny this is a damnable heresy as taught by the NIcene Fathers and the Apostle John.
If there is only one person who is God and Christ cried out on the cross that God had forsaken him (left him) then this means we have only a man dying for the sins of the world. This becomes a difficulty that can hardly be explained from a biblical perspective.
You both: Grigs and Robert have got yourselves into very deep waters and your reputations as theologians are now in question.
Was Jesus God or not?
Jesus died: he willingly laid down his life.
Was he just a man?
What gives?
Grigs,
Dont worry about the trolls....or maybe
church mouse!
Robert
Grigs, you are one who said, 'God did not die on the cross'
now you different?
Are there two Grigs?
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
Grigs and Robert:
you dont know the answers do you
then why are you both telling everyone else what they shougd beleive?
you don't know if God died on the cross or not
you don't know if Jesus is God
no troll here, just trying to find out which way you guys fall on the answers.
I found out that you don't know the answers. wow.
YAWN
1. Was Jesus God? yes
2. Did Jesus have two natures,
each one completely separate
from the other? yes, but not completely separate. the relationship between the two is a mystery
3. Is that how only the man Jesus
died on the cross and not the
God, Jesus? There are the same person with two natures.
4. What happened to the God Jesus
part during the crucifixion? existing
5. When Jesus arose from the dead,
was it just the man Jesus? you cant separate teh two
6. When Jesus went to heaven, is
both the man Jesus and the
god Jesus, or just the God Jesus both. one person two natures.
Grigs say 'Jesus as God never died. Jesus as man did die.'
Now we got two Jesuses
Jesus One and Jesus Two
What did 'jesus as God' do during the crucifixion? Get down off the cross and watch 'jesus as man' die?
Wierd stuff here. wierd
Very deep theology. very deep
But not Christian.
Grigs what is your religion?
no Kev, its spelled 'Yahweh"
Good grief.
Grigs say 'Jesus as God never died. Jesus as man did die.'
Now we got two Jesuses
Jesus One and Jesus Two
What did 'jesus as God' do during the crucifixion? Get down off the cross and watch 'jesus as man' die?
Wierd stuff here. wierd
------------------
Let me clarify: I assumed this wasn't needed given it is common language however. The one person of Jesus in his human nature died and the same person Jesus in his divine nature never died.
Then we are not saved.
Nestorius of Constantinople (386-451) initiated a view that effectively separated Jesus into two persons—one divine and one human. and only the human person died for our sins.
Nestorius' theology was deemed heretical at the First Council of Ephesus (431).
we never said two persons. we said one person has two natures. thats the difference
you are a jehovah's witness aren't you Grigs.
you are teaching that Jesus is not divine and did not die as redeemer
you are a jehovah's witness
now we see.
no I am one of those odd monogamous mormons who affirms the Westminster confession of faith, the athanasian creed, the sufficiency of scripture, belongs to a french-canadian reformed church.
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." I Tim. 3:16.
Jesus
Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew Joshua or Jehoshua derived from the Hebrew " Jehovah is salvation"
"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.". ( Mt 1:21)
He is the savior of the world.
There is only one saviour and that is God himself.
"Even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." ( Isa 43:11)
God became man in Jesus, as he came to save his people from their sins.
"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." (Lu 2:11)
Incoming, look out:
Grigs is a Jehovah's Witness.
AND YOU KILLED THE SOURCE OF LIFE
14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked to have a murderer given to you. 15 And you killed the source of life, whom God raised from the dead; we are witnesses of this
Acts 3:14-15
Holman Bible
Anon,
Go build you a matchbox church so you can preach to your imaginary congregation.
If you had read my Post from Carm.org you would have known the truth a long time ago.
Anon,
Dont confuse Natures and Persons
Nestorianism
Robert from Geneva
GNOSTIC HERESY:
"When on the cross, Christ left his body, and returned to his own sphere. Upon his death the man Jesus abandoned his material body to the earth; the Gnostics held that the true Divine Jesus did not (and could not) physically suffer on the cross, and die'
heretics robert and grigs are busted.
OMG !
wow an. either you are a complete moron who just made me reconsider my opinion about abortion or just a follower of Gordan Clark. Or are those two one and the same in my mind?
Grigs, you got caught.
yes you caught me an. you caught me. I am a 1700 year old gnostic but I was no match for your mad blog watching skills.
at least you know where you land
stop the hissy fit
you have been 'outed'
wow, holding to the trinitarian faith once delievered to the saints get ya called a heretic. I should use more sarcasm on the blogs it keeps up the comments as oposed to a sane moderate tempate comments taht I gave in the beginning
For those who have continued this comment stream so long continuing to argue, what do you hope for through your many words?
We got Grigs to admit he is a gnostic.
The questions remain:
1. Did the person of Christ die
on the cross?
or
2. Did just the human nature of
the person of Christ die on
the cross, not the whole
Christ?
Can the Author of Life die?
Did it happen?
And was he resurrected three days later?
Does a 'nature' die, or does a 'person' die?
?
Are you saying Jesus is not God?
THE SHACK… ANOTHER BOOK FOR STUPID SHEEP
http://codybateman.org/2009/02/01/shack/
Robert from Geneva
robert, if ur from geneva puis on peut discuter ce-ci en français.
Dave Hunt
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6994
Should 'The Shack' Be Attacked?
Robert from Geneva
Grigs
The Southern Baptist Geneva
AKA Nashville Tenn USA
Home of the Founder of the Internet
Anon and Grigs,
If you are brothers in Christ.
Please stop.
Let each other live with where each are at for now. If you are in Christ, you have nothing to prove.
If you are not, you have nothing to give.
Whether who is right or wrong may not be the biggest thing right now, please allow each to grow in Christ and know the truth without being hammered by each other.
Being force fed often times just ends up in vomiting.
oc.
Thirteen Heresies in The Shack-By Dr. Michael Youssef
September 6, 2008
I know I’m kind of becoming a book critic, but because this book is sweeping the Christians of this nation just like the Twilight series and is just as deadly, I thought I should post Michael Youssef’s Thirteen Heresies in The Shack. He read the book and was completely taken in by the emotions it stirred in him, but he soon figured out how wrong the book was. He preached a sermon on it and wrote this.
1. God the Father was crucified with Jesus.
Because God’s eyes are pure and cannot look upon sin, the Bible says that God would not look upon His own beloved Son as He hung on the Cross, carrying our sins (Habakkuk 1:13; Matthew 27:45).
2. God is limited by His love and cannot practice justice.
The Bible declares that God’s love and His justice are two sides of the same coin — equally a part of the personality and the character of God (Isaiah 61:8; Hosea 2:19).
3. On the Cross, God forgave all of humanity, whether they repent or not. Some choose a relationship with Him, but He forgives them all regardless.
Jesus explained that only those who come to Him will be saved (John 14:6).
4. Hierarchical structures, whether they are in the Church or in the government, are evil.
Our God is a God of order (Job 25:2).
5. God will never judge people for their sins.
The Word of God repeatedly invites people to escape from the judgment of God by believing in Jesus Christ, His Son (Romans 2:16; 2 Timothy 4:1-3).
6. There is not a hierarchical structure in the Godhead, just a circle of unity.
The Bible says that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father. This doesn’t mean that one Person is higher or better than the other; just unique. Jesus said, “I came to do the will of Him who sent me. I am here to obey my Father.” Jesus also said, “I will send you the Holy Spirit” (John 4:34, 6:44, 14:26, 15:26).
7. God submits to human wishes and choices.
Far from God submitting to us, Jesus said, “Narrow is the way that leads to eternal life.” We are to submit to Him in all things, for His glory and because of what He has accomplished for us (Matthew 7:13-15).
8. Justice will never take place because of love.
The Bible teaches that when God’s love is rejected, and when the offer of salvation and forgiveness is rejected, justice must take place or God has sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross for nothing (Matthew 12:20; Romans 3:25-26).
9. There is no such a thing as eternal judgment or torment in hell.
Jesus’ own description of hell is vivid … it cannot be denied (Luke 12:5, 16:23).
10. Jesus is walking with all people in their different journeys to God, and it doesn’t matter which way you get to Him.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one will come to the Father but by me” (John 14:6).
11. Jesus is constantly being transformed along with us.
Jesus, who dwells in the splendor of heaven, sits at the right hand of God, reigning and ruling the universe. The Bible says, “In Him there is no change, for He is yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 11:12, 13:8; James 1:17).
12. There is no need for faith or reconciliation with God because everyone will make it to heaven.
Jesus said, “Only those who believe in me will have eternal life” (John 3:15, 3:36, 5:24, 6:40).
13. The Bible is not true because it reduces God to paper.
The Bible is God-breathed. Sure, there were many men through 1,800 years who put pen to paper (so to speak), each from different professions and different backgrounds, but the Holy Spirit infused their work with God’s words. These men were writing the same message from Genesis to Revelation. If you want to read more about the place of Christ in the Scripture, read “We Preach Christ” (2 Timothy 3:16).
----------------
I have also read Tim Challies review and enjoyed the review and agree with it.
Those are some pretty big heresies in that list. God is not a woman. God is never referred to as a woman in the bible.
Sure the book is fiction, but to me that doesn't matter. The basic foundations of the bible are corrupted in this book, and this book is accepted by the Christian community and promoted by the Christian community. This is WRONG.
People will always read a text and interpret it their way, but why START them on a wrong interpretation to begin with?
I hung in there reading it, though early on disappointed with God being presented as a woman, until the main character asked "God" if Jesus was the only way to heaven. "God" who was in the kitchen baking a pie, turned to the character and says, "well...He is the BEST way to heaven."
AND YOU ARE OK WITH THIS BOOK? I don't understand. It is very clear to me that this book is heretical if it waffles on the most basic precepts.
I'm not a theologian or a pastor or anything like that. I have no fancy words to declare my position. I can't parse. I can only say that I love the bible. The Shack is heresy. I don't care how nice the author is or how well-spoken or how dramatic the stories of his preaching are or how 'hot' my heart burns. Mr Young wrote a book that presents God in a totally unbiblical way and presents salvation in a totally unbiblical way and this book is influencing millions.
Where does it end, then? How MUCH will we be OK with? Where does the line get drawn?
http://byfaithonline.com/page/arts-culture/the-shack-what-god-should-have-said
Robert from Geneva
fair point OC. I was a bit overly sarcastic and perhaps went to far thought the points he made were non-sensical, heretical, and worthy of Joseph Smith in my opinion. My problem is that these bloger posters can get away with saying whatever they want calling everyone they disagree with heretics (even though no matter how many times I quote the athanasian creed and tell them I subscribe to the westminster standards) and any quick look at them will show they are well with in the bounds of orthodoxy AND they don't state their beliefs just criticize others. Did mr. anonymous ever answer my question concerning whether he was a trinitarian who acknowledged the deity of Christ?? no. But me I was kind nice and mild from the beginning and was essentially driven into a sarcastic rage due to his ignorance.
But I digress... ur right I quit this thread. I am not a heretic. I stand along side the ecumenical councils, the reformers, and Church history. My conscience is clear.
I loved 'The Shack'. Reading it brought me closer to God than I have been in many years.
He was right there all the time.
I didn't see it, and then I read this book. Now I see all the signs that He was near with me. That's what this book did.
I think God meant for me to read this book so I would feel His Presence and feel that He loved me.
Lindsay
I am going to be right “up front” about my view of the best seller “The Shack.” If you are looking to be bathed in the warm glop of secularized spirituality you will love “The Shack.” It takes all of the hot button issues of contemporary feminized secular religion and pours it over the reader like melted cotton candy. It feels good but leaves the reader mired in the sticky muck of anti-Christian pop-culture. In other words, “The Shack” may shackle the unsuspecting reader to Oprahized religion.
The hot button issues “The Shack” swirls together in its sticky concoction include: radical egalitarianism (God hates hierarchy); experience trumps revelation (who needs the Bible?); Jesus isn’t the only way to be saved (He’s just the “best” way); God doesn’t punish sin (He’s a pussy cat); “traditional” Christianity is the problem (who needs church when you can find God in a shack); virtually everyone in every belief system—atheists included—will be saved (Jesus doesn’t want to make “Christians”); and true faith is irrational (this stuff doesn’t have to make sense).
Okay, in my view, “The Shack” is exactly the kind of book I never read. Even if it wasn’t riddled with noodle-headed nonsense and, instead, was basically orthodox, I wouldn’t read it. I don’t read its kind of literature. However, as a pastor it has been recommended to me scores of times and recently individuals have purchased copies of the book for my wife and me. I’ve had to finally review it.
I must admit, all the people who have asked me to review the book have been women. Unfortunately, they usually end their request by stating, “Oh, and this book has been sooooooooooooooooooooooo… meaningful to me.” I translate this to mean that if I say anything critical about “The Shack” it will really upset them. Yet, “The Shack” begs a response because it purports to speak for God. Yes, I know that it is “only,” “just,” “merely” a story. I hear that all the time when aberrant books are presented innoxiously as a narrative. Like I didn’t know that wolves dress in sheep’s clothing.
Instead of focusing on the nearly endless examples of anti-Christian ideology in “The Shack” I will limit my post to addressing its wildly heretical view of the Trinity. I do this because whenever I write about the Trinity on TFD it gets such a fun reaction and because it is my view that all Christian heresies must—and I mean MUST—attack the Trinity. The reason heresies must attack the orthodox view of the Trinity is because it ultimately undercuts the true divinity of Christ. And it is essential to heresies that Christ not be fully divine.
Right off the top, “The Shack” presents the Blessed Trinity as three individual persons while the author denies he is propagating Tritheism (p. 100). However, it is overwhelmingly clear to the reader that William Young is advocating a communitarian view of the Trinity in which each of the Divine Persons has a separate will and consciousness. A rose by any other name is still a rose and you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Young is stuffing Trithesim down the throats of those naïve enough to believe him.
Additionally, Young is radically anti-authoritarian and, therefore, presents the Godhead as adamantly opposed to any form of hierarchy including that which is essential to the ordering of the Divine Persons (the processions). Without the ordering of the Divine Persons there cannot be any definition of “persons” within the Trinity. In other words, the true nature of the Trinity would evaporate without the processions. What we would be left with is Tritheism or some other heretical view of God. In short, hierarchy is essential to both God’s nature and the ordering of the universe—the created universe as an expression of God’s divine nature.
Young’s view of the Trinity looks more like a hippie commune than what the Scriptures, nature, and Christian creeds declare.
Again, if you are looking to be bathed in secular, spiritual-sounding goo (a sticky wet viscous substance), then “The Shack” is just what the doctor ordered. If, though, you want a dose of real truth that will change your life, try Christianity and the Bible.
http://simplegodstuff.blogstream.com/v1/date/200901.html
I just have to wonder. I'll be the devil's advocate, so to speak. If you don't have enough faith to read the "Shack" without the possibility of damaging your faith, how strong is your faith?
And further I must ask, how are you dealing with everyday life, considering you are confronted with challenges to your faith moment by moment? Or are you so blessed that this is not relative to you?
My goodness people. If that's as strong as it is, I reckon your faith is but "sissy".
oc.
There is nothing to fear in that book. I'm glad it was written.
I'm glad I read it.
Lindsay
Robert,
None of the scriptures you have cited have an if then clause in referring specifically to God's love. With regard to blessings, yes-if-then; with regard to salvation, yes-if-then; with regard to love-NO if then-love while we were sinners, love in sheol and everywhere else, love that neither height or depth or any other thing in creation can separate us from (Romans 8:39).
See also, Ephesians 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
Ephesians 3:18 may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God
Of course, you know as well as I that there are many many similar passages. They do not have the word "unconditional" in them. They also do not list any conditions or if-then statements. You may not like the idea of unconditional love, but it is scriptural; or let me say it this way: the objective logical case that can be made for an interpretation of scripture that indicates God's unconditional love is at least as valid as the case one can make for an interpretation of scripture that does not allow unconditional love.
You can say it as often as you like, Robert, but just because you say, "scripture says or scripture does not say" does not mean that you are objectively correct in every case. A little humility would be refreshing. I am sure of the truth and inerrancy and power of scripture. I am not sure that you have interpreted scripture properly in all cases. That doesn't mean I have an "It's all good" theology (I know that's not your statement, but I think it captures your general condemnation of Wade for allowing Young to speak to his congregation). Because you call it heresy doesn't prove that it is. In fact, I may have missed it, but I don't recall that you have explained what about Young's writing or speaking is heretical (with exact quotes from him so we can be sure that you interpretation of his words is reasonable). I would be interested in what you regard as heretical about Young's thinking
The Shack: Helpful or Heretical?
A Critical Review by Norman L. Geisler and Bill Roach
http://www.normangeisler.net/theshack.html
Some people don't know that God loves them.
Stephen Pruett
If you have not figured it out from the gizillion quotes I have put up here.....I dont think you really want to see it.!
Robert from Geneva
Elizabeth, praise God someone else finally said what some of us have tried to say on this blog.
You said it all, and you said it well.
And again let me say, Youseff has a wonderful sermon in his archives at his church for anyone who hasnt heard.
I'll say it again, how much is the church going to sweep under the rug, and dismiss as well it's only fiction, or it wasnt intended to be theological or doctrinal.
It stands for what it is, and it sure doesnt exist just as a nice story.
There is a difference between intelligent Biblical discernment, and heresy hunting.
And this is it.
Robert,
Should have read your previous post, as you did address what you view as heretical in the shack. However, I notice you did not cite specific words, you made assumptions about the intent of the author, which are obviously heavily influenced by your particular view of things. Again, just because it is clear to you does not mean it is objectively clear to someone who has no particular ax to grind. If all of this bad stuff is in there, give us a couple of quotes and then tell us exactly how it is heretical without putting words in the author's mouth or inferring thoughts of his that are not stated and could just as easily be wrong as right. Hmm, word verification = guises
Robert your 12:19 am post, also right on.
thank you.
Oc, faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
Why arent we teaching more people Biblical literacy and how to gain a knowledge of Him from the Truth of His Word?
The objection to 'the Shack' might be that it does not portray God as wrathful and hate-filled, but as loving and nurturing.
Some need to see God as wrathful, or their 'faith' is threatened.
The Shack is a book that challenges their concept of a hating, vengeful, wrathful unlovable God, who has no love for fallen mankind.
The Shack certainly separates the people who love God from the ones who don't. You can see it in the reviews.
Anon. 1:27, if you think those who love God have to love this book, you are way way way off.
You just proved Elizabeth's point.
(A different anonymous....)
I think there are some people who serve the devil by dishing up an image of a hating, proud, vengeful, unforgiving, mean-spirited god. Those people are guilty of blasphemy and are going to hell. They try to drive people away from God, but they can't. They just get meaner and meaner and more evil. They make God look worsse than Satan. That is so sick.
"Why arent we teaching more people Biblical literacy and how to gain a knowledge of Him from the Truth of His Word?"
Because YOU can't.
That is the job of the Holy Spirit.
Didn't you know that?
Imagine people assuming they can take the place of God in other people's lives.
Here is a book I highly recommend
The Holy Bible
He Has Risen!!!!!
Robert I Masters
from the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert: You are on a mission to rip this book to shreds, and I have asked you several times to go listen to the messages that dispute everything you have quoted and written. This is why I hate rumors. They start and every religious leader picks it up and runs with it. They then read the book with these rumors in mind which causes them to give reviews not based on what the book or the author is actually saying.
Most of these men, are ones that I respect, I disagree with their reviews. Allegories are probably the most misunderstood books, and successful ones are torn apart for reasons I don't understand.
It's interesting that I read the same book, the same words, yet did not get the meaning that is being attributed to it by these men at all. And having listened to the author of 3 sessions, came away even more convinced of my interpretation of his book.
It's not going to end anytime soon, but I think Christians are becoming heresy hunters and in doing so are starting rumors that are damaging the innocent. That is wrong. What's sad is that you refuse to listen to his own words, the proof that you may just be wrong(I would use the words are wrong, but I can hear the protest coming from you now).
I don't agree with Grigs, but I think that the anonymous "christian" (note the little "c") that is interacting with him is a jackass.
If Grigs is in fact a member of the Mormon cult, he has no chance of being won over to a right relationship with the God of the bible via this anonymous punk.
Grigs, please know that most Christians do not interact with Mormons or anyone else the way that this joker is.
He has no concern for you. He only wants to "win" a theological debate (Pharisee) and couldn't care less about you personally.
Let him win the debate and be left with his reward now (Pharisee), because if you are a Mormon, you have more pressing needs then feeding oats to a jackass.
I have not read the shack but one of the biggest concerns about the book from most I have read is about the 'lack of hierarchy' in the Trinity.
I realize some point out other things that I tend to have some agreement with but it is quite telling that the lack of hierarchy is usually their biggest concern.
That only shows me how deep ESS has penentrated because of the focus on male hierarchy.
New BBC Open Forum said...
Excellent point. Stealing mail is a federal offense. The JSO would not investigate this type of crime. The USPS has their own investigators.
The Jax TV stations are on this...
First Coast News
FOX 30
9:24 PM, APRIL 09, 2009
Robert said 'Right off the top, “The Shack” presents the Blessed Trinity as three individual persons while the author denies he is propagating Tritheism (p. 100). '
Problem: it isn't true
The Papa character, the Asian woman, and Jesus all know the same thing, if Mackenzie told something to one, they all know.
There are endless examples of how the three 'persons' are the 'same' Being.
For someone who purports to be intelligent, and you are, do not let down your standards in battle: if you dislike the way the story is told, fine. But don't misrepresent it.
Or your own credibility as a person of integrity is overshadowed by thoughts of others that you are so 'pre-judiced' against the book that you only read a few lines and then skip much that follows.
Try again.
Develop your 'trinity' description.
But do it honestly and completely.
We've all read the book. Some of us know parts of it by heart. You won't be able to read only a few parts and understand it all. Just some advice to help you.
Debbie, many folks who read this book have no access to a talk by the author. And the fans of the book wanted to send it to other countries and military men who also have no access.
Many many mnay of us have read it, did not like it, and believe that it is hurting more than it is helping.
And the well known authors or pastors who disagree with it, have researched the thoughts in it.
It also does not come under the category of allegory.
Lin's point is also valid, as there are people who have read the book and decided they do not have any hierarchy to deal with but in fact, God is on the exact same level as they are.
Maybe they need to read Is. 6. to get a real view of a Holy God.
To Lin, you are correct in that many who 'haven't read the book' and tell people 'not to read the book' are motivated by the desire to see Christianity pulled further away from its core beliefs in the Trinity.
ESS is a greater threat to the concept of the Trinity than any fiction novel could ever be.
ESS is a power thing, a control thing, so that women can be 'put in their place' and those who foster ESS are willing to destroy the faith in the Trinity in order to accomplish this end.
It's not about religion. It's about control and manipulation.
Amazing what these people will do.
Paul's book enhances the wonderful connections within the Trinity in a way that many can understand. It may not suit everyone's taste as to how he wrote it, but the theme of 'no one is better than the other' is preserved in accordance with the orthodox belief that the Trinity is co-equal, and shares the same Essence.
Somewhere in this blog stream, someone said that Christ did not totally die on the cross, only His human nature. That is any example of an attack on orthodox Christology. The Person of Christ died and the Person of Christ rose three days later.
And therein lies our hope of eternal life in Him.
Paul Young hasn't attacked anyone's faith if that faith was sound Christian doctrine. He will get reactions from those whose theology travels into areas rejected by orthodox Christian doctrines developed and preserved by the early Fathers and the early councils. We have seen evidence of that here in the recent blog stream.
"Hear-say" won't impress those who have read 'The Shack'. We can spot those who haven't completely read the book, and are trying to denounce it as heretical.
It is fiction. It is an allegory, full of metaphor and symbolism, and something more: it touches hearts that have been hurt, and turns them towards the fact that they are loved by God. In some cases, there is evidence that God has used Paul Young to reach hurting people with the Gospel message that God loves them. If this is unacceptable to some people, then so be it. Perhaps the real problem with these people is that their religion has no room for a loving, compassion, forgiving, nurturing, saving, God-With-Us. You can see that in the comments of these people, sadly.
Advice to anyone who hasn't read
'The Shack': read it. Find out for yourself why it has brought many to God, and many back to God.
Those who are criticizing Griggs:
You are being vicious. I shan't defend his theology (and suspect he has not revealed enough of it, in a thorough-going way, to completely understand), but fellows, where is the love? Where is grace?
John 17:26, "I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
1 John 4:16, "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."
John Fariss
Just finished reading it.
Didn't like it.
I understand why those who didn't like it, don't like it. Once again, Al Mohler has nailed it.
I understand why those who did like, do like it. Once again, emotional appetites are easily fed and easily swayed.
"It also does not come under the category of allegory."
No.
"The Shack" is one of the most amazing examples of metaphor and allegory to be written.
It will likely be used in future in university classrooms as an example of the use of allegory as a literary device. The statement above may have been made by someone who has not read the book.
Or the statement above may have been made by someone who has no concept of the use of literary devices to develop themes in fiction. The third possibility I do not want to think is true: that the person who wrote to Debbie is trying to deceive her. Won't work, Debbie is one sharp lady. She will know the difference between 'allegory' and doctrine.
You didn't like it.
I loved it.
That is the wonder of this book.
We can read it for ourselves and decide.
Spare me.
There are hundreds of people who have read the book, not liked it and have just an absolute fine understanding of God's love for them. All ages, all denominations.
Why? Because God laid down His Word and this book was not part of that Truth.
Maybe it has touched people, but to reject this book is not to reject God's love.
Which parts of God's attributes do you want to leave out?
An author once wrote me, you can love people all you want and you can love them right to hell.
You had better show them the whole truth of God's Word, in God's Word.
You would think accepting the book is akin to accepting that Word.
And again, please check definitions of allegory.
Google Shack and Allegory.
Lots of reviews saying the same thing.
The Shack doesnt fit the bill of allegory for many.
I have actually enjoyed reading the many opinions on this blog.
I especially liked the debate between Grigs, Anon and Robert.
It was strong, but thoughtful and witty.
I haven't laughed so hard at some lines in a blog for a long time.
Louis
What is your literary education?
You are even having difficulty understanding that 'The Shack' is not a doctrinal statement or trying to be on the same level as the scriptures.
That is a sign that you cannot understand symbolism in literary devices.
If you don't understand 'allegory',
try the concept of 'metaphor'.
Just to be sure that we understand one another: what is YOUR understanding of the purpose of allegory and metaphor as literary devices?
I will know immediately if you are educated enough or sophisticated enough to understand these devices from what you describe. Not trying to be difficult, but you brought it up.
Louis, it was quite a romp wasn't it? Poor Griggs. Robert basically used quotes. Griggs got confused. Anon. was merciless.
Sorry. I believe it is making a doctrinal statement and when I see people wanting to put it in the hands of people (like the military) over the Bible, I do think they are giving it way too much weight.
And my education and background, has nothing to do with the allegory debate, though I do agree With Challies and others.
No problem seeing it the way you want to. Doesn't make it real.
That's the ole fundie line: 'if we say it often enough, then it is a fact'
Sayin it be doctrine statement
don't make it be doctrine statement
It be Christian fiction.
That word 'doctrine' gets thrown around a lot, doesn't it.
Meditation for Good Friday Based on Isaiah 53: 1-12
There was nothing special about him; he wasn't physically attractive in any remarkable way. He was a man like any other, I could easily have passed him in the street; he wouldn't have commanded a second glance from me….
There was nothing special about him, he wasn't particularly strong, he was a tradesman, like other men, I could easily have passed him in the street; he wouldn't have commanded a second glance from me….
There was nothing special about him, his clothes were everyday clothes, a little tatty if the truth be told. He was a man like any other, I could easily have passed him in the street; he wouldn't have commanded a second glance from me….
There was nothing special about him, he was not rich; I'd even dare to call him poor. I could easily have passed him in the street; he wouldn't have commanded a second glance from me….
There was nothing special about him, or so I thought, until he spoke, and his words wound their way around my heart, and took my breath away….
There was nothing special about him, or so I thought until I looked into his eyes and saw that they were filled with grace and light, with love, wisdom and compassion, and he took my breath away….
They said that there was nothing special about him. But his words and actions caused enough of a stir to lead them to crucify him!
They say there was nothing special about him, and yet they saw fit to take his breath away.
I wonder why they were afraid, if there was truly nothing special about him…
Dear Friends,
Some people of faith sit silent vigil during the hours of twelve noon until 3P.M. on this day.
During this time, we pray silently and meditate on the Holy Writings that tell of the Mystery of the Redemption.
These quiet hours are a time of solemn memorial. I will pray for all of you during this time, in the way of my faith, that your preparation for the Easter celebration be a meaningful one for you. Roger, I will pray for Casey, too. :) Please remember to pray for Wade's boy.
Much Love to all, L's
Anonymous 10:55am,
Your comment speaks my view of all that is being said in a wonderful way. I appreciate you having said it and the spirit in which it was said.
I DO think there CAN be discussion about whether some who have written about it all need to work at a balance the Love of God and the Holiness of God 'kissing in the Cross event' [not my orginal phrase at all] so God CAN be justified in lavishing His Eternal Love on people who have blown it spiritually. [sin]
There could be some, IMHO, who DON'T properly balance the two. It may be out of a desire to show that the Father DOES eternally love and desire relationship and the Son in His Cross event IS NOT trying to convince the Father to, in fact, love sinners. He already does. The whole thing was the longing of the Eternal Father.
Others, in their zeal to maintain God's holiness, tend to make it appear He [The Father] is so mad [wrath] over sin He wants nothing to do with sinners. But, because of His eternal love for the Son, He is persuaded ONLY by the Son's willingness to do the Cross work.
I think He is ABLE to express who He ALWAYS is [Love] because of the cross work of His only begotten Son. [Who, by the way, He sent BECAUSE of His Eternal love for sinners, but would have denied His Holiness and been unjust to give us His love WITHOUT the sacrifice of perfect Son.
ALL the Trinity was involved in our redemption, from start to finish, out of great love and grace in my opinion. It is NOT just an emotional, sentimental person who needs to KNOW the Father loves him/her. It is ALL of us who have been twisted by sin and shame and tend to create our own "shack" to hide it all [sin/shame] from oursleves and others.
I'm having to walk through my own "shack." I've learned a lot from Paul's account of his journey. But his nor anyone else's journey [All the Drs. or Profs. or Pastors] will take me away from the scriptures that declare my freedom in Christ and walk in the Grace of the Father through the life of the Spirit.
Many of the comments here evidence one manifestation of our nature ... the tendency to "humanize" God. We cannot envision, ourselves, sending sinners to hell in a loving way. We can't, thus, attribute God's pouring out His wrath as having anything to do with love.
My friend Calvin Matthews, Pastor of Red hills Baptist Church in Kingston, preached on that once. Our limitation of understanding does not mean that God is not loving in all He does, including His dealing with unrepentant sinners. And perhaps we cannot see His loving hand in the entirety of what happened at Calvary, even in His dealing with Jesus on the cross.
That's our limitation, not God's.
Literary Comments
As a piece of literature, The Shack is pretty much deplorable. The writing is awkward and the entire story line is completely contrived. It seems, at least to me, that Young had an idea of what he wanted to say about “God,” but decided to put it into story form instead of simply writing what he wanted to say. As a result, we are left with a cumbersome narrative that carries (or fails to carry) along the dialogue, which seems to be what Young really wanted to say. I was less than impressed with Young’s literary talents. And, come on, “Mack” as the main characters name? I was half shocked that no 18 wheelers showed up in the book.
Theology or Fictional Novel?
Some people have gotten up in arms because this book is being critiqued on a theological level when it is self-described as a novel. I understand and empathize with these concerns. However, no one in their right mind can read The Shack and come to the conclusion that Young was not attempting to describe “God” and his (her? theirs?) relationship to humanity, creation, providence, etc. When people make theological statements, whether in the context of non-fiction, fiction, poetry, songs, Morse code, or smoke signals, they can, and should, be critiqued on a theological level.
Heresy in The Shack
As has been pointed out by others, there is, in fact, heresy present in The Shack.
The first is Modalism. Concisely, Modalism is the belief that God has been revealed in different forms (or “modes”) throughout history: God the Father in the OT, Jesus the Son in the NT, and the Spirit in both. This is seen throughout the book as the narration points out the scars on the wrists of God, which, apparently, come from when Jesus was crucified. While some might say that this is splitting hairs, I do not believe that it is. I agree with Dr. Carl Trueman who said, in a lecture in his Ancient Church course, that all heresies start with a misunderstanding of the Trinity. I fully agree. Our understanding of the Trinity is that important.
A proper understanding of the Trinity can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith 2.3: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.” To put it simply, the Trinity is comprised of three distinct persons and one substance. Not one substance and three modes. Not three substances and three modes. Not three different gods who are friends. Three persons, one substance. The Shack, unfortunately, confuses this orthodox and biblical picture beyond comprehension.
Second: another Trinitarian mistake is in terms of The Shack’s presentation of hierarchy (or lack thereof) within the Trinity. Through the characters, Young presents the readers with a Trinity in which there is no hierarchy and even presents hierarchy as a completely negative entity invented by a fallen humanity. There is truth and lies in this presentation. The truth is that ontically there is no hierarchy within the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit are all eternally and completely God. However, functionally, or economically, there is a hierarchy within the Trinity. In other words, in and of themselves (ontically), all three members of the Trinity are equally and eternally divine. But functionally, or economically, there is a hierarchy within the Trinity. For instance, the Son does the will of the the Father, the Spirit is sent by the Father, only the Father knows when Christ will return. That is a hierarchy…and it is not negative. Hierarchies can lead to injustice and abuse; but they can also lead to freedom and peace. There are good, God ordained hierarchies in Creation, marriage, the Church, and the Trinity. This fact is left out by Young, seemingly because of his distaste for the concept of hierarchies.
Third: there are aspects of open theism present in the book. “God” is presented as someone who does not ordain all things (contra to Scripture), but, somehow, works everything out to his (or her, or their?) purpose. This undercuts the idea of a God who we can trust not only because he is in control of all things, but also because he knows and has ordained the beginning from the end. It might lighten the emotional or psychological tension to believe in a God that is taken by surprise by evil or who isn’t in control of evil, but, at the end of the day, it actually compounds that tension because the God you now believe in is not the God of the Bible, but a God of your own creation.
Fourth: sin is magnificently under stated in the book. While all the evils of the world are pinned on sin and original sin is talked about, there is no talk of how much sin angers God, how much God’s wrath is kindled because of sin. Rather, “God” is presented as someone who is just trying to salvage “his” (or her, or theirs) creation. “God” seems hurt by sin, but not furious. He seems completely pacified by the death of Christ to the point where there is no more anger or wrath. But one reading of Revelation will tell you just how far The Shack’s idea of God is from the Biblical picture of God. God is a God of justice and will vindicate himself and his people. That doesn’t mean hugs and apple pie. It means punishment…and rightly so. If God did not punish sin, he would not be just. If God isn’t just, then what in the world are we doing with our lives? People don’t go to hell because they have been forgiven. They are there because God is glorified in justice and without punishment of sins, injustice reigns.
Conclusion
Some may think that I have been too harsh on this book. Maybe I have, but I have attempted to be fair. I would encourage any one with an interest and knowledge of Scripture and theology to read this book. I would caution those who do not have as much knowledge of Scripture and theology before reading this book. I hope that this book sparks interest in studying the Trinity and that it, ironically, leads people away from its presentation of “God” towards a Biblical and orthodox understanding of God.
One final word: some will attempt to justify the theological errors by claiming that this book has touched many people, healed many people, and, perhaps, brought people to a deeper understanding of God.
Those are the same reasons that this book should be condemned. The “God” that this book speaks of is not the God of the Bible. In a somewhat ironical twist, Young chides against some Christian’s understanding of God and their preconceived notions of a God of their own creation. His answer, strangely enough, was to present a God of his own creation.
Any comfort that comes from a false presentation of God is, in the end, false comfort. The God of the Bible is the God of comfort. There’s no need to reinvent him. We only need to present him.
From Out of UR
One final word: some will attempt to justify the theological errors by claiming that this book has touched many people, healed many people, and, perhaps, brought people to a deeper understanding of God.
Those are the same reasons that this book should be condemned. The “God” that this book speaks of is not the God of the Bible. In a somewhat ironical twist, Young chides against some Christian’s understanding of God and their preconceived notions of a God of their own creation. His answer, strangely enough, was to present a God of his own creation.
Any comfort that comes from a false presentation of God is, in the end, false comfort. The God of the Bible is the God of comfort. There’s no need to reinvent him. We only need to present him.
From Out of UR
My apologies the last two comments were from this blog....not Out of Ur.
http://aboulet.com/2008/07/28/the-shack/
Robert:
I would remind you just because you say something does not make it so.
Tom Parker,
Your Point?
In case you did not get it that was Arts point. But I choose it because I agree 100 percent with it.It wasin response to both Debbie and Paul.
Robert from Geneva
An author once wrote me, you can love people all you want and you can love them right to hell.
And the scripture to support this statement is found where?
"We love Him because He first loved us..."(1 John 4:19)
Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Mat 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
Mat 5:47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
Mat 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
We see our sin for what it is because we begin to see Christ for who He is. His love breaks through to us.
I just listened to the 2 hour talk by WPY last Sunday Evening at Emmanuel Baptist Church, Enid, OK.
My life is eerily 90% similar to WPY experiences. I fully understand his process and what he went through.
I have not read the book "The Shack" yet. I will do that as time permits.
Debbie: I'm sorry you dont need a Scripture to argue the point the author I spoke to was making.
She said, you can love someone right to hell if you only present the loving side of God with no judgement and no need for repentance. She was referring to people from her particular 'religion' who were not being shown the way of salvation.
This is why people can read The Shack and not make one single change-- that complete turnaround which is repentance.
Tom, just because *anyone* here says anything does not make it so.
What kind of rational is that?
Robert, that was an excellent link and says it all.
It's too bad the hunger and thirst for studying and learning to study the Word of God, is not causing the real passion it should be causing.If fans of the book put that much zeal into really studying and teaching others how to study and learn, then we might have something.
Anonymous 02:34,
You'd be making a big mistake if you assumed that those who like "The Shack", don't.
Bob: Number one, I said I would like to see that kind of fervor over the Bible (which many folks say is way too difficult to study or spend time with).
Nubmer two, after spending some time on The Shack forum, I saw members and even the moderators not sending pagans in search of the salvation message.
And, in fact, the Missy Project is very disturbing when we cant get the Bible into people's hands.
C. S. Lewis said that as he read George MacDonald’s, Phantastes his imagination was baptized. He went on to say that it took 18 years or so for his baptized imagination to reach his head. I suspect that such a baptism is what happens to most people who read The Shack.
Debbie Kaufmann,
Your quotes [An author once wrote me, you can love people all you want and you can love them right to hell] is exactly the conclusion of Wade's concusion: emotion/feeling over doctrine. He cocludes: "And I will keep away from those brothers who don't practice this love - no matter how much they agree with me theologically." Emotion absolutized and doctrine relativized.
Gereja,
." Emotion absolutized and doctrine relativized."
Except Wade's decision is based on a commitment to the truth of scripture [11 Thess. 3:6&13] NOT to emotion at all.
I think that is the way Christians are to make decisions. At least it is in the fellowship of believers of which I'm a part.
Anon,
His words clearly is a postulation of relativization of doctrine however nice it is wrapped. It is quintessential postmodernism baptized by Scripture.
Lu Mo Nyet
Gereja,
The Holy Spirit convicts us when we have done wrong or failed to do what is right and not responded in a situation.
The result: guilt, an emotion which Christians experience, like Debbie said, when we realize how much God loves us, and how we have failed His commandments.
I'm going to pay attention to my emotions. I think the Holy Spirit also activates 'compassion' in me for people that I have problems with, so that I can care more about them and see past those problems to actively love those people. I couldn't do that without the intervention of the Holy Spirit working on my feelings.
St. Peter denied Our Lord three times. At the crucifixion, Christ looked at Peter with great love, and Peter wept sorely. Emotion.
Emotions, feelings, these are REAL.
They belong to the realm of the immaterial, yes. But they have their origin in our hard-wired neural system, as there are places in the brain that, when stimulated, arouse emotion. Example: the area of the brain that responds to music is next to the area that 'feels' emotions; so many times, 'hearing' music stimulates a 'feeling' of emotion in us. Physiological neural reasons exist for the presence of our emotions.
And WE are made 'in the image of the Creator', we are told. So we cannot rule out that the Creator of the Universe may possess emotions. Many of us have 'felt' the peace that comes from God's loving care and the sense that He is very Present in our lives. It isn't our 'imaginations', no, because it is that peace that 'surpasses all understanding'.
Emotions. They are real.
They are a part of our humanity.
A gift to us from the Creator so that we may be truly His chilren.
Emotion is NOT an attribute of God. God does not possess emotion as a divine attribute; therefore, God is not emotional in His relationship with rational creatures. Therefore, emotion is only used of God as an anthropopathism to express a divine policy or attitude in human language, which God does not have. Anthropopathism is designed to explain to mankind in human language divine policy on the sovereign decisions of God related to His divine righteousness, His divine justice, and His divine love.
Emotion related to the person of Jesus Christ is confined to His human nature. There is no emotion in His divine nature, only in His human nature. When Jesus wept at the grave of Lazarus, that was good emotion from His human nature. There is nothing doctrinal in tears of hughs.
Emotion is not a part of man’s soul, but the result of the function of the human soul. Emotion is not the image of God, but the image of mankind.
Agape love is not swayed by emotion, 1 Cor 13:4 but directed by doctrine. Filling by the Holy Spirit (Eps5:18) is NOT emotional but doctrinal.
Emotion is a result of cognition. Emotion is not a part of the spiritual life. We are not spiritual because we feel spiritual. The spiritual life is the cognition and function of the spiritual procedures revealed in the word of God, and it produces the purpose of the spiritual life--to reflect the integrity of God.
Emotion has no ability to love. Thus, emotional perversions produces homosexuals and lesbians.
Emotion & emotional pattern of Christians distract them from the execution of the plan of God, Rom 16:17-18.
Emotion hinders post-salvation perception, and application of doctrine, 2 Cor 6:11-12.
You can't hug a heretic and correct his heresy at the same time. 2Jn8-9 commands doctrine and NOT recommend emotion over doctrine.
If you read the Gospel of John correctly, especially post-resurrection conversation with Peter: agape does NOT have emotion. Philia DOES entail emotion.
Emotion is NOT designed as a corrective device in case of heresy. This is the problem with situation ethics in the past (Fletcherian) and today's post-modern pastors.
It is like an Indian proverb if I remember correctly (of Hinduism god): his hand is so long hugging and wrapping all and in the process choked his own throat.
Lu Mo Nyet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEFv-ol67k0
Amen John McArthur.
Hi Gereja,
My belief is that God is unsearchable and unknowable in His Being. It is when we realize that we cannot know Him completely, that we BEGIN to know Him.
I don't rule anything out.
We are told that we see 'as through a glass darkly' in our limitations. Can the creature ever fully comprehend its Creator?
No.
I leave the question of whether or not God is Love, or God is Loving-Kindness open for others to consider. For me, it is within my understanding of God to say that 'God is Love' and to say it with profound conviction. L's
Gereja - From what I have seen with others interacting with you, I must say your relationship logic is as screwed up as your theology.
Ugh!
Even the Catholics are after Gereja. He must be screwed up.
"You can't hug a heretic and correct his heresy at the same time."
No one can correct anyone's heresy.
Everyone can give someone a hug.
We do what we can.
Sometimes we have to intervene to ease someone's pain, before we can speak to their thought processes.
A lot of people are so drowning in pain. We need to be 'with' them as they are, complete with all their pain, and warts, and unpleasantness, and 'heresies', and lifestyles, before they will trust us enough to listen, with trust, to anything we have to share with them. We need to be 'with them'.
The power of a 'hug' is that it says more than doctrine can say in words. There is a silent blessing in a hug for someone who is in great pain. One hug can do more good than a thousand sermons and lectures. But it must be genuine, and born from caring about the person who is troubled, and done in the Name of Him Who bore all of our pain on the Cross.
Hugs are silent blessings.
Blessings are healing. :)
No, I'm not 'after Gereja', I hope to be able to learn from him.
Yes, I am a Catholic. And I am not afraid to learn from anyone.
Love, L's
Wade wrote,
"Last weekend's services at Emmanuel, Enid with guest speaker Paul Young possessed more of the Spirit's gifts of renewal, cleansing and conversion than any weekend I can remember in twenty-five years of pastoral ministry.
Several hundred gathered on Saturday night, then again in three services on Sunday morning, and for one final service on Sunday night. The gospel - the good news - was shared in all the services.
Men for whom we have prayed for a long time came to faith in Jesus, some of whom will be baptized this Sunday. "
Behold the fruit of the Holy Spirit: 'men for whom we have prayed for a long time came to faith in Jesus'
Behold the fruit of the Holy Spirit: 'some of whom will be baptized this Sunday'.
Alleluia. Easter is the traditional day of the baptism of catechumens in the early Christian church. Thanks be to God. :)
Anon,
Your conviction in your emotions can be CONTRARY to bible teaching however strongly you might feel about it; emotion does NOT have doctine, and has been proven to be contrary to doctrine.
This is a literal translation of Rom 16:17-18, “Now I urge you brethren, be alert for those who are causing dissensions and apostasies contrary to the doctrine which you have learned. For such believers do not obey our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own emotions, serving themselves; and by their smooth and flattering speech they decive the hearts of the stupid."
Lu Mo Nyet
Obeying Our Lord Jesus Christ
Summary Of All The Commandments Of Jesus
This is His one commandment which summarizes all the others:
"This is my commandment,
that you love one another
as I have loved you." (John 15:12)
Here is the way He arrived at this one summary verse.
JOHN 15:9-12 (RSV)
9 As the Father has loved Me, so have I loved you;
abide in my love.
10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love,
just as I have kept
My Father's commandments
and abide in His love.
11 These things
I have spoken to you,
that my joy may be in you,
and that your joy may be full.
12 This is my commandment, that you love one another
as I have loved you.
This is not just one more commandment He added to a list. This one commandment summarizes all the others:
"Love one another
as I have loved you."
"Your conviction in your emotions can be CONTRARY to bible teaching however strongly you might feel about it."
Suppose the believer prays for the light of the Holy Spirit's guidance, trusting the promise of the Lord Christ that He would send the Spirit as our Guide and Counselor to provide discernment.
Then the believer reads the Holy Writings, after sincerely seeking this Guidance in prayer.
And waits in silent contemplation of the Word.
No reliance on 'self' here.
If anything, an opening up to the wish to be 'filled' with the teachings of the Spirit.
And then, having received this teaching, gives thanks for the Gift?
Is this not the way we have been taught as Christians to approach the Scriptures? In reverence and in dependence on the Lord's guidance? And then, having been blessed, are we not to give thanks to Him ?
Emotions are not so much a part of this process, but there is a great yearning to 'receive' that which is there for us in the Holy Writings. This is more like a hunger or a thirst for the blessings of the Word.
Is this more like what you are meaning, Gereja?
A process that is guided by sincere openess to the leading of the Spirit?
If it is, then this is something that I can understand from my own way of praying and reading the Word. Love, L's
Anon,
You pasted Jn15:9-12.
How do you define love?
How do you interpret the mandate to love your neighbor? And love your enemies? And how do you apply the mandate to love your enemies and neighbors?
I got a clue from Rom 5:8 But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners (NLT).
NO emotion whatsoever in God's love. No emotion in God's thinking; no emotion in His love; and NO emotion in expressing His love. It is perfect righteousness and perfect Justice. It is the manifestation to His perfect integrity.
Look at historical facts: God's love for His chosen people, Israel: the whole rebellious generation redeemed from sin and led out of Egypt--more than 2 million killed in the wilderness, except for Joshua and Caleb. How about Sodom and Gomorah? How about Noah's generation? How about the Babel generation of Genesis 11? How about Matthew 24-25 and the end of the world?
The apostle of love, the apostle John wrote the following about the people who do not believe in Christ--the end is horrible for those who reject Christ:
11 And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. 12 I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God’s throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave[b] gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. 14 Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:11-15).
God is love, He is Perfect Righteousness & Justice. A God of Integrity. In the end emotion IS NO factor whatsoever. Don't become romantic and sentimental in using and abusing the word love and imposing it on God. He is a Being of a totally different essence and different order than you and me. We only know HIM and CAN know HIM because He has revealed Himself in the Bible.
Lu Mo Nyet
Hi GEREJA,
You asked 'how do I define love?'
And how do you interpret the mandate to love your neighbor?
Well, I look to the Gospels to the Words of the Lord for an answer, Gereja. I find this which spells out not only expectations but tells what happens to those who say 'Lord, Lord,' and don't obey Lord Christ as a Lawgiver:
This is from Matthew Chapt 25:
31
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32
and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
37
Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
40
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41
17 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44
Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
45
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
So, there it is. In His Words.
In my religion, we are bound to obey Christ as Lawgiver. And we will answer to Him on the Day.
He ties our judgment to the acts of loving-kindness for those in need. And this is where I have learned what He means by 'love thy neighbor'. There are other teachings of His that involve forgiveness and returning good for evil. These are hard lessons, which can only be obeyed with the Gifts of His grace.
You asked about 'love your enemies'
and I think about the descendants of the Anabaptists: the Amish people. I wrote something about that once. How they forgave the murderer of their daughters and then they cared for the family of the murderer, who committed suicide. I know of few better examples than theirs.
But today, in contemplation of the Word, I read this: 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'
Maybe that is the finest example of forgiving and loving 'enemies'.
What are your thoughts, Gereja?
Wade wrote this:
"By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." (John 13:35). It would seem that this tradition of loving people through unselfishly doing that which is good for others is the very mark of Jesus in us."
and then this:
" It's interesting to note that the Apostle Paul's concern for Timothy is not that he keep away from those brothers teaching differently, but from those brothers walking differently. Or, to put it in John's language, the world will know that we are Christians not by what we say but by how we love."
In this, the word 'love' is an action, not an emotion. It is acts of loving-kindness in the tradition of Jesus' ancestors as expressed in the OT.
I think the difference between an act of loving-kindness and a 'good work' lies in the term 'loving-kindness': to reach out to our own kind who are in need and to minister to them in His Name and at His Command to obey His Law of Charity. Extremely different from doing something selfishly in order to 'get credit'. When we minister to people by acts of loving-kindness, the credit goes to Him, and the people we help know that He cares for them. :)
Gereja,
You have just epitomized the enculturation of Enlightenment thinking and Christianity. You have claimed repeatedly that only that which is rational could be of God. Only what is good to the mind is of importance. Only what can be understood by logical, propositional analysis is worth consideration. All that is mysterious and wonder-ful is to be scorned.
Of course, this same subservience of mystery to rational intellect is characteristic of all brands of Fundamentalism and Liberalism. After all, they differ only in conclusions not methodology. Both parrot a God who is bigger than they are but who is reduced to what they can understand. Both you and Robert have exemplified this paradigm.
And thus we see why doctrine becomes central rather than the relationship to Christ. We see why it matters more that we think properly than that we live properly in light of His story. It is because we have given ourselves wholeheartedly to the Western-Modern-Enlightenment project.
We have made God and the Bible subject to our systematic, intellectual scrutiny, rather than making ourselves open to their scrutiny. It is safer to us that way. The Bible must conform to us rather than us to the Bible. We don't enter into a dynamic and mysterious relationship with God. We enter into intellectual mind games. We lose the mystery of transcendence and immanence, holiness and mercy, divinity and humanity, love and reason, all rolled up into one heavenly being who dwells in earthy temples.
When all we have to do is dismiss one side or the other (holiness or mercy, divinity or humanity) reason works. But the God of the Bible is neither reducable to nor understandable by reason. And for that, praise be to God.
Christiane:
My take on love:
Love is love, and it is an emotion.
My personal thinking is that too many Christians feel that, if they're willing to do something for someone, that's the equivalent of love. But it's not. Hence people who claim to "love" will say the nasty things we see here and there among believers.
Agape love is love which is of a nature and a strength that it requires action. Strong's says it's love "in a social or moral sense" ... seeming to indicate obligations deriving therefrom; Thayer's says to "welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly".
Action without love is welfare. Love without action is selfish.
I also hasten to add I'm no Greek or Hebrew scholar, but these thoughts come from resources I look to in preparing lessons.
Here is an interesting piece by Greg Koukl called "Preaching God's love in Acts?":
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5089
Be Square With Scripture and Stop Being Emotional and Sentimental!
The New Testament teaching on human works are characterized in general as: “from the devil,” 1 Jn 3:8; Jn 8:41; “of darkness,” Rom 13:12; “of the flesh,” Gal 5:19; “evil,” Jude 15; Mt 23:3; “lawless,” 2 Pet 2:8; “dead,” Heb 6:1, 9:14. The only works that will stand the scrutiny of God are those which are effected by His Holy Spirit and grounded in faith [Bible doctrine], Jn 3:21; Jn 6:29; 1 Thes 1:3; Rom 2:6-7; Acts 26:20. New Testament teaches that the Kingdom is built upon God’s grace, not human works!
The only work(s) acceptable to God is(are) the works of the Holy Spirit as per Gal5:22-23. Hence, divine works through believers are productions of the Holy Spirit by means of bible doctrine residing in our souls, NOT HUMAN PROJECTS. NOT us producing the works. However good they are.
Works are NOT means to spirituality. Works DOES NOT produce spirituality. You are not spiritual because you HUG people; nor you become spiritual because you give 100% of your money to the poor; unless you are filled by the Holy Spirit (Ep5:18) and filled with bible teaching, all the works are of the flesh.
All human works will be burned as wood, hay and stubble (1Cor3); all unbelievers GOOD works and those unbelievers who do them will end in the final big BONFIRE.
Do you all take the following words of Christ seriously? It does not matter what Wade said. How would you all evaluate all the huggings and kissings and sharing of money and love with unbelievers [who are nice but died still in unbelief] under the light of this passage?
Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. 12 I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God’s throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave[b] gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. 14 Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.
Be Square With Scripture and Stop Being Emotional and Sentimental!
Lu Mo Nyet
Give me a physical break.
Of course God possesses love, pity, compassion, mercy and a ton of other moral attributes along with attributes such as those that are communicable, incommunicable, relative, absolute, transient, and immanent and a semester of a whole Seminary systematic theology class study of others.
Of course God's attributes of love, pity and compassion are unlike human emotions and will remain rather unfathonable because of our "glass darkly" thing.
Of course when God DOES come to live in His redeemed creature He expresses Himself clothed in their creative, redeemed personalities including emotions, thoughts, will, physical body, and the whole ball of wax.
Then He incredibly gives them a very relational [God-breathed in the original documents] book called the Bible written in their language as human beings. [So I'd guess it's OK to live like a redeemed human being and to even talk like a redeemed human being when we talk to one another about God.] I don't even think He's going to be upset and mad as fire if they miss out on understanding some of His divine characteristics once in a while. Makes it exciting to be able to study the BOOK for the rest of their lives to discover it all.
So what we wind up with is a blog where people [redeemed human beings perhaps] are trying to have a very personal and biblical discussion about God and where people [who do have emotions both negative and positive] are expressing their ideas, feelings, fears and joys as human beings But, unfortunately, are shamed and condemned for it by some.
When the Spirit does His work in a human being you won't find an absence of emotions...you will find a person who is simply learning to draw from the true source of life [faith] as they learn to walk biblically and become fully human in relationships with God and people not unlike themselves. And, of all things, sometimes they fail in it. But when they do fail they ultimately recognize that, admit it, get up and go on in repentance. [change of mind] Because they are redeemed after all.
But what they don't need is that semester of Seminary systematic theology class presented in one comment section much less one comment and the dumping on them of shame and condemnation.
As I said...give me a physical break.
[Excuse my emotion]
PS.
As I see it through my glass darkly I think Christiane had it right. I also think Kevin C. had it right.
Dear BOB CLEVELAND,
You wrote, " I also hasten to add I'm no Greek or Hebrew scholar, but these thoughts come from resources I look to in preparing lessons."
Thank you, Bob, for sharing with me.
You are one of the people here I pay attention to, and I have learned much from you. You have the mark of a true Christian gentleman: you are a humble man before the Lord.
Because of this, I want you to know that I would value your opinions over those of any Hebrew or Greek scholars.
I think that Christ lives in your heart and when you share, I listen.
And I learn.
Just wanted you to know how much respect I have for you. May God watch over your health. Love, L's
What is LOVE?
Here is the chapter everyone takes for granted. Imagine what the world would be like, if people really believed and lived it.
Corinthians
13
Love
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Try to remember the first time you read this. I bet you felt 'emotion'. I hope so. :)
THE FIRST SHALL BE LAST
AND THE LAST SHALL BE FIRST
IN THE WORLD TO COME
"At that time Jesus answered and said, 'I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight'" (Matthew 11:25-26).
"For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence" (1 Corinthians 1:26-29).
God has not called the wise, the mighty and the noble in this age. Jesus confirms that "the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light" (Luke 16:8, NIV). Yet the enlightened children of God will be the firstfruits of His salvation.
The prophet Isaiah notes the way of God in fulfilling His plan: "But on this one will I look: on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word" (Isaiah 66:2).
God will even things out.
None will enter His Kingdom who is not truly humble. Anyone who seeks to exalt himself over others must repent of his selfishness to inherit eternal life (compare Colossians 3:12-13; Romans 12:16; James 4:10; 1 Peter 5:5-6).
Grigs: The more you write, the more you are proving my point. Theology, even your theology which I disagree with as Biblical, without love is nothing. Just read 1 Corinthians 13 to further point to what I am saying.
Those who post anonymously. I will not let you get by with being anonymous by answering your comments. It's always amazing to me that it's the anonymous posters who prove to be the most brazen in their commenting. why? Because no one can know who they are so they don't have to take responsibility for their words as they hide behind that curtain which shows up as the screen name anonymous.
I'm sorry my comment is addressed to Lu Mo Nyet. You take a piece from scripture here and a piece there and form a theology that is devoid of the rest of the Bible. I'm sorry but I read and study scripture and on some points I begin to be with you and bam, you make a left field turn. You are wrong Lu and I don't know how much kinder, yet blunter to be. The God that you end up describing is not the God I see in scripture. And to have such a God would be more misery for us as Christians than it is the joy that we have.
Read of God's love for his own Son, for those who are his through their faith in Jesus Christ. NO greater love could we ever experience. This love translates from us to others. You also seem to leave out Christ who said the Greatest commandment was to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind(emotion) and our neighbor as ourselves." Don't add to this commandment things that just are not there Lu.
Christiane, L's,
I agree with your last post. I am learning much from Bob Cleveland. He always points to the Christ.
So do you.
Blessings.
oc.
Folks - Gerja is a Quaker. I knew it from one of his very first comments.
He may not know it, and he may not even know what a Quaker is, but he is one.
Gereja - You are also turning into a jackass when you start insulting. Of course we all study the bible. Just because we don't have a skewed view like you, doesn't mean we don't "square it up" with scripture.
Relax. Take in other views and keep studying yourself. I refuse to believe that God will not straighten out your theology if you remain diligent.
Press on!
Hi Guys,
First, Wade conveniently bypass the INTENT of the passage he put up to bolster Young's book by conveniently sidestep THE CONTEXT of the passage he quoted. He, above us all know the rule of interpretation that CONTEXT IS KING = CONTEXT DETERMINES THE MEANING also WALKING, TRADITION and DOING GOOD.
Remember the quotation has its original CONTEXT--the original context IS NOT about selling a speaker or his book; nor is it about any project; Paul wrote under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit: "Now we command you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is (not) walking . . . in accord with the tradition [PARADOSIS= instruction] you received from us. As for you, do not grow weary in doing good" (II Thessalonians 3:6,13)."
Why when people see a mistranslation "doing good" do they automatically assume it means good deeds? You have to look at the context to find out what "doing the right thing" (better translation) means. Verb is "kalopoiew", and is a compound of "well, right, upright, good"(=kalos) plus "to do"(=poiew). It's not about deeds, but about choosing what's right. And what is that? Obeying INSTRUCTION, 3:14.
He who does not love God is not able to be loving his brother (1Jn2:4-5). So how can you love God until you know God and if you don't know God then you don't CARE to know Him, so if you don't know Bible you don't WANT to know God, so then you can't love your fellow man, either. So all the good deeds are to puff up ego, no real love there.
It's impossible to keep God's commandments if you don't know God. For if you don't know God you don't know what HE MEANS BY His Commandments, and instead will be your own god, making up the meaning yourself.
What did Christ do? LEARN BIBLE. Okay, so that's what we should do. I can't think of any of the 'good deeds' we Christians get into which Christ Himself actually did. Can you? He didn't urge the disciples to do habitats for humanity, He didn't tell them to crusade on abortion, he complimented a woman who only gave a little money over the guy who gave a lot, avoided the religious types who were famous for their good deeds (the Pharisees), etc. All this you well know.
Matt 6:33, "Seek first the Kingdom and His Righteousness.. and all these things will be ADDED unto you." Implication? That if God isn't FIRST, then any additions are zero.
On Love IS "doing something" -- it is learning and living on Bible TAUGHT, Matt4:4 (Greek for "word" there is "rema", Bible TAUGHT). System of thinking. Right thinking leads to right action, but NO BIBLE leads to crusading to so something [Obama's bailout theme]. So: alleged Love for God which isn't a Love for His Word is hatred. So if no Word in you then hatred is in you. So then all those good deeds evidence hatred: for in that same amount of time you could LEARN the Word instead, and then PRAY for the good deeds to be done by FATHER. Which means bigger deeds will be done.
You all are right in quoting John:
Love as Christ loved
Walk as Christ walked (1Jn2:6)
Yeah, "walk as He walked" -- IN WORD. What good deed is actually recorded of Him? Is it recorded that he gave money to charity? NO! That he organized a revival? NO! Where did He crusade on anything? NONE! He sure didn't crusade on abortion, which obviously was being practiced then, even as it always was! Did He ever crusade on passing laws against same sex marriage? NO. Did He write any book on hardball politics? NO! Did He crusade to coerce unbelievers to practice the Word? NO! Did He ever crusade on anything? Oh, yeah, He did --- "seek ye first the Kingdom and His Righteousness" -- not, good deeds. "The poor you will have with you always." "Be not like the Pharisees." "THE man [Jesus or the believer in Word] does not live on bread only, but on EVERY WORD which proceeds from the mouth of God."
Seriously, what good deed is recorded of Him? He walked and talked WORD. That's all you find recorded of Him in the Gospels. Sure, He healed some people. But only a few. If healing ALL people was the good thing to do, if feeding them ALL, then the Lord was remiss -- for He only did that for a FEW. And of course, those were miracles from His Deity, so you can't credit HIS Humanity with a work.
Now, if Perfect Humanity of Christ did no works BUT WALK & TALK WORD, then what else can be called "good"? Nothing. Don't conveniently forget the CONTEXT and THE TEXT and taken the text as a PRETEXT to crusade for any and all PET opinions [on Shack or anything]!
It is very simple: rather than QUOTE & PASTE a lot of Scripture leaving behind THE CONTEXT; why not GETTING THE TRUE MEANING OF ANY TEXT--the accurate teaching of any text IS in its context [NOT IN US supposedly loving few in this room]. The teaching of the text is universal and absolute; the application is relative--between an individual and the Holy Spirit.
Please stop absolutizing any good deed by citing any text out of its context! Your intention and emotions, however strong they are DO NOT at all transform your beliefs into TRUTH. People can be genuine and humble and at the same time genuinely and humbly err! Nobody is as genuine and serious as the jihadists!
Lu Mo Nyet
Chris Ryan,
You got it right, bro. Thanks.
John Fariss
Lu,
Reading your 10:40 posting, I could easily get the impression that Jesus is some sort of a chimera (I think that is the correct term). Want to reword?
John
John - You have Lu pegged exactly!!!
And Lu, context is king - I could not agree more. But you asking people to keep scripture in context is probably the most hypocritical thing you could possibly say given your misreadings on every scripture you have referenced in your comments.
I think if we were sitting face to face discussing theology and you would have said that, I would have slapped your face and demanded that you take your own words to heart.
Gereja,
If you think Jesus did no good works, then you are the most pitiable of Bible scholars. In Matthew, Jesus preaches the Sermon on the Mount and immediately goes down from the mountain lives out what He said by making lepers clean, healing the sick, and casting out demons. In Luke, Jesus constantly lifts up the poor and the needy. Some have said that in Luke's gospel, all it takes to be a follower of Jesus is to recognize that you are a needy person (and not only spiritually needy).
Certainly Jesus was a student of the Bible, that's why Luke is sure to note that Jesus was found in the temple asking questions after His bar Mitzphah. But Jesus was not only about studying word. Jesus very often redefined Word. And then He lived accordingly (especially in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain). Do you realize that in Mark, Jesus does very little teaching at all? The majority of His ministry according to Mark is healings and exorcisms. Jesus will perform a miracle and they will call that teaching with authority. It was what Jesus did that taught, not what Jesus said.
Jesus didn't fight for lesislation on any of the hot-button political issues of our time. But if you read Him in His *context* Jesus took on many of the great debates of His day. Divorce, poverty, Roman occupation, sacrifice, temple worship, whether every Jew was bound to Levite law. None of these can be read a-socially. Jesus wasn't just talking about Heaven, He was talking about living like Heaven was coming to Earth. And in that world, the blind see, the deaf hear, the prisoner is set free, the oppressed are released, and good news is preached to the poor.
Yes, study the word. But all that study is meaningless unless you have the courage to also live like it is true. Good works prove that the faith and teaching are true and are being truly formed in you.
Jesus went about doing good. God said it. Everybody knew it, too. He fed people and He healed them. Not even the Pharisees could argue about that .. they killed Him because He claimed to be equal with God.
He was "philanthropic". Giving.
That's "doing good". To call it otherwise seems to be 'way out of the context of Jesus' life, and of the scripture, too.
Hmm.......
We should "do" as "good".
For Lu.
Did Jesus really 'read' the Bible to learn what was in it ?
No, He IS the 'Logos' Incarnate.
He is the One who taught and amazed the learned rabbis in the temple. He IS the Word made flesh.
Did Jesus command us to read 'the Bible'?
No. He told us to 'love one another as I have loved you' and to go out and care for the 'least of His', and thereby care for Him.
He wants us to carry His lessons inside of us, in our hearts and minds and show mercy to the least of His.
Most people of His time did not read. There were no 'Bibles', only Torah scrolls copied by scribes from more ancient scrolls and kept in the temple.
The people learned from the rabbis.
The story of their history was lived out in their traditional observances throughout the year, and throughout the major events in each of their lives.
Did Jesus leave us a book with words?
No, he founded his Church and left it in the care of the Apostles, who were to be guided by the Holy Spirit. They wrote down His teachings and commandments under sacred inspiration. People copied and preserved these writings and eventually, the church decided on which of these writings were genuinely inspired. People still argue about which books belong in the canon of sacred scripture, as the 'list' was not a part of these sacred writings.
Maybe you need to try something: Find a church. Enter into the church 'family' and learn of Him in that context. Then take Him out into the world and share Him with others. How? Just follow His commandment. Will You find Him in the 'context' of the Church. Oh yes.
Remember, when 'Saul' was persecuting the Church, Jesus appeared to him and said, "Why persecuteth thou Me?"
Go to a church, Gereja, and learn of Him in the 'context' of the people who are the church family.
He is there, waiting for you.
Then, when you read the Bible, it will really be in context for you.
Hope this helps you.
Anon 12:34,
Great post, good advise.
Just a couple things:
If you read Luke's account of Jesus in the temple, Jesus was asking questions not teaching.
And Torah scrolls could be found in any synagogue (not just the temple).
None of that affects the real content of your post, but we Baptists have some very peculiar traditions about Scriptural interpretation that Scripture doesn't always bear out.
But again, great post and excellent advice.
Hi Chris,
The meeting of Jesus with the Sanhedrin involved a 'rabbinical discussion' which begins with the 'student' asking a 'question'.
Then the discussion is wide-ranging into not only all of the texts of Torah, but also the commentaries. There is much 'give-and-take' with people asserting certain points, others asserting counter-points, and then a third group 'resolving' the issue by bringing all together in agreement over meaning.
If you have never heard of 'rabbinical discussions', read the book 'The Chosen' by Chaim Potok, to get a very simplified view of the 'process'.
It's lively and involves great feats of memory and a great grasp of the width of Torah and the commentaries. It's amazing.
The scriptures tell us that the rabbis were amazed at Jesus' knowledge. This tells me that, at twelve, Jesus was very in tune with His Divine Nature, and twelve is the 'coming of age' when a boy comes to temple for his bar mitzvah ceremony, in this day and time. Hope this helps.
"the rabbis of that time were accustomed to give instruction in the temple courts ; and people, young and old, gathered about them, sitting at their feet to learn; but there was much that was extraordinary in this interview with Jesus, as the demeanor of the learned doctors showed, for never before had such a student been found, inasmuch as "all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers."
Anon 12;34, no, not a great post.
I cannot, and I mean I cannot believe what I am reading though it proves the point many are making about The Shack.
We are supposed to study the Bible, we are supposed to read it and learn to study inductively (observation, interpretation and application).
Jesus is the Word of God, the Word is alive and active and sharper than any two edged sword and oh my this blog has taken a severely dangerous turn.
I'm glad I attend a Baptist church where the pastor teaches line by line verse by verse and helps others study (or brings in materials that help them study).
Praise God for the little ones who are memorizing the Word of God, and learning even from the age of 2. Praise God for men and women who are studying and learning and carrying out the Word in deed and action because they bother to learn it and know it within context.
Some of you need to read II Timothy 3:16 and 17 and get a grip.
Even satan knew the Scripture and tried to twist it against Jesus.
You ought to know it better......
Gereja,
You remind me of the guy who says the grass is blue even though all those around him are saying it is green.
You really should stop trying to tell us you THINK the grass is blue when we all KNOW it's green.
If I were ever outnumbered
"everyone else" to 1 on any matter, I would have to rethink my position.
And that much more so on matters of theology and biblical interpretation.
Heed that advice.
Jesus is the Logos, not a 'book'.
You will find Holy Scriptures teach you of Jesus. You will read His Words quoted there. And you will read His Teachings preserved there.
He is not 'a book'.
He is God.
The 'Bible' is a 'sacred book' because it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus sent. It is read under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit with the discernment that is our gift from the Holy Spirit.
The 'Bible' is not to be worshipped.
It is to be approached reverently in the 'spirit' in which it was written.
"Ekklesia" is what Jesus left us.
Not a book.
"I am the Vine, you are the branches.'
"Ekklesia" : the Body of Christ.
'and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'
Your Baptist church is a part of the Body of Christ. Your Bible tells you the story of Christ.
Gereja needs to belong to the church and be a part of a church family.
Anon,
I had never heard of things going quite like that. Very interesting.
I think a better interpretation than "Jesus' knowledge" is "Jesus' insight," in that He was asking questions that were profound and expressing thoughtfulness well beyond His years. But you offered a very interesting and valid counter-interpretation. I shall have to look into this more.
Thank you.
Read Jesus prayer in John 17.
He gives equal value to love and Word.
Of course we dont worship the bible, we worship Him.
But we have an entire book full of reasons why we had better know the Word and know how to use it.
The new is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed. It is a total and complete integrated book in which the Old Testament is as important as the New. Jesus is in the whole of it.
It is not just a story of Jesus.
It is commands,promises and more. It is Meant to be observed, interpreted corrrectly and applied. And context is king. Gereja got that right!
People have suffered greatly for hding this 'story' in their homes.
People have died over this 'story'.
People are struggling to have one little page of it to read, or a translation in their language.
Yeah, it's just a story....
No. It's THE Story.
As in 'tell me the old, old story,
of Jesus and His Love'
Surely you know it's not 'just'
'a' story?
But you don't worship the 'story', you worship 'The Lord'.
Otherwise, you are guilty of idolatry of a book.
Anon, are you Gereja?
He sounds like he worship words in a book.
Jesus is not 'the bible'
The 'bible' is not Jesus.
The Bible is the Sacred Scriptures that tell of Jesus Christ.
You may be confused by the term
'Word' as in 'Logos', the Christ.
as opposed the 'the word of God recorded in the scriptures'
The Logos (Jesus) existed before Creation. The New Testament is the inspired product of Jesus's church: the Body of Christ, the Ekklesia. It was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
God is not the product of a book, or locked inside of a book. The Holy Bible is not God.
Gereja, you are confused.
For Gereja: "The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity."
The term: 'Logos', 'the Word'
refers to Jesus Christ
'Logos' is not the bible.
For the Baptist who worships the Bible:
"Mainstream Baptists have repeatedly warned that Southern Baptists were being led into Bible idolatry. The 2000 BFM confirms the veracity of this charge. The SBC is officially requiring that members bow to the Bible before bowing to Jesus.
The prologue of the 1963 BFM said,“The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ.” This was an acknowledgment that Jesus is the only infallible interpreter of God’s will in human life. God’s will is perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ “whose will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.”
The prologue of the 2000 BFM unashamedly deletes this sentence and replaces it with a clause about “doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.” Notice is thereby given that Jesus is being demoted in Baptist life and a creed promoted.
Confirmation of Jesus’ demotion comes in the first article of the 2000 BFM. The article on scriptures in the 1963 BFM said the Bible “is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man.” The 2000 BFM deletes the words “the record of.” It says the Bible “is God’s revelation of Himself to man.”
This is not a minor change. It is sub-Christian. Deleting the words, “the record of” is clear evidence that the Living Word of God is being subordinated to the written word. The Bible has become an idol and the uniqueness of Christian revelation has been undermined. Every religion, sect and cult claims some inspired writings as divine revelation (click here to see chart). Christians believe that God reveals himself through more than inspired words and thoughts and books. Words and thoughts and books, even when they are divinely inspired, are inadequate to reveal God’s person. What distinguishes us as Christians is that we believe that God revealed Himself uniquely in Jesus Christ. The Bible is not superior to Jesus and the Bible is not equal to Jesus as divine revelation. Jesus is God’s perfect revelation. The Bible is the record of God’s revelation.
By saying that scripture “is God’s revelation” the 2000 BFM promotes the Bible to a place that properly belongs only to Christ. Then it goes on to demote Jesus further. Jesus is merely “the focus of divine revelation.” While “All scripture is a testimony to Christ,” the primacy of Christ over scriptures is no longer acknowledged. That is the effect of the 2000 BFM deletion of the confession that, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”
Acknowledging that “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” reminds Baptists to interpret the Bible with humility. The only infallible interpreter of scripture is Jesus Christ. Without this safeguard there is great danger that Baptists will subordinate the Living Word of God to the fallible interpretations of men.
All these changes make it clear that the primacy of divine revelation has clearly shifted from Jesus to the Bible. Baptists are bowing to the Bible more than to Jesus. The Bible has become an idol. Even worse, a lesser idol has been forged. Soon we will see how many Baptists will be expelled from the SBC for refusing to bow to the 2000 BFM before bowing to Jesus:
Demoting Jesus to Promote Scripture"
or at least, now you worship the B.I. interpretation of scripture
we turn our worship to the symbol itself. It is the symbol that is perfect. It is the symbol that becomes the object of faith, instead of the Holy Spirit that gives it true authority.
As a system for approaching Holy Scripture, that is inherently idolatrous.
Jesus Christ is Lord.
Not a book.
Nope, this Anon is not Gereja.
I think this blog has gone wonky.
It only proves my point that people who gather around The Shack, often throw out the necessity for the study of the whole Word of God.
Calling people who pursue the study as those who do not know love or God's love, calling those who do not like the book as those who do not know the love of Pappa.
It is not worship of the bible to pursue inductive study of the Bible. Jesus is the Word, the Bible is the inspired Word and to throw any part of that out is to be dead and utterly wrong. Otherwise, you might as well go pick up a book of Mormon. They have the story of Jesus too (in their eyes).
I will continue to put my money into organizations such as Precepts where they are about teaching people all over the world how to obeserve, interpret and apply the text. I'll support my Baptist church where we study verse by verse, every Sunday.
Way back to the initial post on this blog on this subject, I think the Scriptures being used are being used to support having Mr. Young teach at one's church.
No doubt, there has been debate all over the country about whether he belongs there or not. I would hope one day he would promote church attendance and Bible study in his talks and any future books.
Those who have opposed the book, known writers, bloggers and teachers and even lay people got it right. His views on the written word have caused problems.
Back to my posted link on John MacArthurs view's, the church it seems is dumbing down.
"Jesus is the Word, the Bible is the inspired Word and to throw any part of that out is to be dead and utterly wrong."
If you mean that Jesus and the Bible are the same, that is idolatry.
Jesus is not a book.
You got it wrong.
And gee, then I guess all the bible teaching churches (Calvary Chapels etc) are dead wrong too.
Kay Arthur would love you all anyway, even though you are crushing her very efforts.
If you want to worship a book, go ahead.
But you will have to answer for it.
'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me'
That Bible is the inspired word of God, it is NOT God.
If you preach that it is God, you will then probably also preach that only YOU can interpret God.
Then you are into blasphemy: the kind for which there is no forgiveness.
So which came first: God? the church? or the bible?
JESUS CHRIST THE LORD DID NO GOOD WORKS FOR 30 YEARS AS YOU ALL DEFINED AS GOOD WORKS
Human good works is called dead works — Hebrews 6:1. Human good work is not acceptable to God ever — Isaiah 64:6; Romans 8:8. Human good work is condemned by God — 1 Corinthians 3:11-16; Ecclesiastes 12:14.
Human good work is the basis of judgement: 1) of the unbeliever at the last judgement (Great White Throne) — Revelation 20:11-15. 2) of the believer at the Judgement Seat of Christ — 1 Corinthians 3:11-16; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 14:10.
Human good work is a product of the sin nature — Isaiah 64:6a.
Human good work was rejected at the cross — will be burned at the Judgement Seat of Christ — 1 Corinthians 3:11-16: 1) Divine good: Gold, silver and precious stones. In fellowship rewarded.; 2) Human good: Wood, hay, and stubble — carnality: burned.
Human good work is actually a Satanic concept: One of the greatest exhibits of the cunning nature of Satan is the promotion of his doctrine through the social gospel, concepts of world peace, economic ventures to abolish poverty, “do-gooder”, doing good in the name of good, and religious endeavours — 2 Thessalonians 2:9; ecumenism of errors; 1 Timothy 4:1ff., etc.
The answer to human good work is divine good. Divine good is produced in the believer in three ways, through Bible doctrine: 1) The filling of the Spirit — Galatians 5:22-23; 2) From the expression of Bible doctrine from the human spirit — Ephesians 4:23ff; Luke 2:40-52. 3) From the upbuilding of the soul by means of bible doctrine — John 1:14. Satan produces human good, God produces divine good.
Christ took in Bible doctrine for 30 full years and DID NOTHING before FILLED FULL with Bible teaching in His Human Soul. Luke pointed out in Luke 2:52 that Jesus as a human being "kept keeping on growing [proekopte] in wisdom [sophia: bible doctrine learned & kept in His human soul] and stature [helikia]. . ."
CONTRARY to what you might assume that the LOGOS, the Second Person of the Trinity Incarnated, He does not need to learn anything. As God He does not grow; as fully human being He grew up physically and spiritually. At 30 He was perfectly mature in spirituality. His Divine nature DOES NOT offset His Human nature's natural growth at all. Even at the cross God did not and can't die; it was human Jesus who died spiritually and cried: Eloi. Eloi lama sabachtani! His divine nature does not offset His humanity. He learned, He grew spiritually, He died spiritually as sinless Savior Who bore our sins in HIS Human body until TETELESTAI--completed perfected work of atonement; then He voluntarily gave up His human spirit unto the Father. All the 33 years His kenoo (kenosis) -- did not use His deity.
He, only healed few people from His deity to prove His messianic office, His deity and message. He only performed few miracles with the same intent. He did NO crusade for pro-life movement; He did not crusade for UNICEF type movement; He did NOT crusade to change any political party. He did NOT crusade to abolish poverty, or corrupt political system. NOR did He reformed the Southern Judaism Convention. The liberation theologians have failed miserably to fit HIM into their socio-political crusade.
Lu Mo Nyet
Lu, I think its called the Southern BAPTIST Convention
Gereja, what is your religion?
You don't sound baptist.
Your idolatry and the Bible idea is way off the beaten path and has nothing to do wiht anyone in any Bible believing church or group who promotes studying the Word of God. Read Matt 5:17 to 20 and quit telling people their salvation is in question.
'Bible-believing' refers to believing the teachings in the Bible, not worshipping it.
Are you SURE you are a Baptist?
Gereja - Is a Mormon folks. Good night. Just read his comments.
The Catholics and now the cult of Mormonism has invaded Wade's blog.
Hi All,
As far as I know Bill Gates is an atheist. He gave billions of dollars doing a lot of good globally. Our Lord praised the widow who gave just few cents. Warren Buffet gave record billions of dollars to Gates' Foundation. My offering is nothing compares to theirs. As far as I know Oprah is not a believer in our Lord. She has a school in Africa and going places hugging people. She gave hundreds free notebook computers and hundreds of free Pontiac cars. Moslems have hundreds of orphanages and hospitals. Atheists have humanitarian programs worldwide. Whose work will be called gold, silver and precious stones? (1Cor3)
Lu Mo Nyet
Gereja - Is a Mormon folks. Good night. Just read his comments.
The Catholics and now the cult of Mormonism has invaded Wade's blog.
You forgot to mention the guys who think there are two Jesuses:
the Gnostics: Grigs and what's his name
Gereja is a Palestinian
Post a Comment