My post about The Shack is still reverberating about the intertoobz, both good and bad, mostly bad. In the midst of all the outcry and other distractions, I never really got a chance to address Maria. She has since reposted her UPDATE: The Shack – what do we do with this book and movie?
I actually did something I rarely do, I decided to go see the movie. Long ago I read the book, but the movie is what is being discussed, so I wanted to see what the fuss was all about. I must say, now that I have seen the movie, I am more baffled by the Christian outrage than I was before.
Apparently movies that promote love, forgiveness, and faith without the usual sex, pornography, and gratuitous violence, are deeply offensive to us? Who knew?? My biggest complaint about the movie was actually the actor, Sam Worthington. I need some drama in my melodrama and he simply looks into the camera somewhat blankly. Personal bias, I’m sure.
I could not find one single thing that ran contrary to theology or contradicted doctrine or amounted to heresy. It is a movie about one man’s experiences, his perception of faith, and healing after child abuse, spiritual abuse, and the murder of his daughter. I thought it was beautifully done.
Maria has posted a photo called “13 heresies in the Shack” I have studied them all extensively and I want to say, I did not see a single one of these things in the movie. These theological conclusions were not the ones I reached at all, not from watching the movie.
I also want to say, you all are free to disagree with me or even better, to come along side me kindly and offer some edification. A couple of those things labeled “heresy,” I rather agree with. So perhaps I am not understanding properly, in which case feel free to elaborate.
1. God the Father was crucified with Jesus.
Actually the idea is, God the Father was with Jesus, right up until, “Father, why have you forsaken me.” The concept is, God did not abandon His son to crucifixion.
2. God is limited by his love and cannot practice justice.
Actually the concept is God is holy, loving, and cannot practice injustice.
3.God forgave all of humanity whether they repent or not.
Actually it is Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” The idea is that our repentance did not cause God’s forgiveness. God’s goodness did.
4. All hierarchical structures are evil.
?? I didn’t see this anywhere, nor do I believe it myself. In The Shack there is a mom, a dad, kids. In the church there is a pastor, deacons, elders. These are healthy, normal, hierarchies.
5. God will never judge people for their sins
People tend to judge their own selves for sin, and sin carries natural consequences, too. God doesn’t have to run around punishing people for unforgiveness, for example. In The Shack the guy is carrying the “sin” of having had his daughter murdered. He struggles with unforgiveness. Wouldn’t you? What kind of God would then heap on additional punishment for your unforgiveness when your child is murdered? They make it pretty clear that God is not excusing anything, including the evil that was done to the daughter.
6. The Godhead has no hierarchical structure, just a circle of unity.
I believe that. I do not subscribe to things like the Eternal Submission of the Son. Why are we trying to assign a hierarchy to the Trinity? Is God limited by our human perceptions of power and so we must inform Him which parts of Himself have higher or lower rank?
7. God submits to human wishes and choices.
Never saw that in the movie, don’t believe that myself. God does however, answer prayers. He allows things in our world to sometimes align with human wishes and choices. He blesses us. I’d rather not launch into a thesis about predetermination, free will and the nature of time.
8. Justice will never take place because of love.
God’s love is restorative justice, not revenge based justice. We separate our own selves from God. Love and justice go hand in hand. Justice is not the revoking of love.
9. There is no such thing as eternal judgement or torment.
Well, I’ve never believed that. There is such a thing as eternal judgement and torment here on earth so I see no reason why there wouldn’t be in the after life, too. There are people living literally in torment and judgement right here, right now, on Earth. The farther away from God you move, the darker it gets. That’s true no matter what dimension you’re in.
10. It doesn’t matter which way you get to God, Jesus is walking with all people on their different journeys.
You have to read that very carefully. It is NOT saying there are many paths to the Father. It is saying you can start out in life far from God and Jesus is right there with you, always knocking on the door, always trying to get you to take His path. That is why we have atheists who become Christians, or whatever. People get to God through drug addiction, war, brokeness, other faiths, all over the world. God may well know us before we are born, but on our side of things, we are not simply “born a Christian.” We are all on a journey to Christ.
11. Jesus is constantly being transformed along with us.
I have no idea where that even came from? Even in the Shack, Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. In the movie he’s a young Middle Eastern guy who walks on water, teaches spiritual truth, and does carpentry.
12. Everyone will make it to heaven.
?? Again, I have no idea where this came from. I’ve never believed everyone will make it to heaven. As CS Lewis once said, “there will be surprises.” Some people separate themselves from God while they are here on Earth, so it seems like the same happens on the other side.
13. The bible is not true because it reduces God to paper.
The bible is true. However, the bible in the hands of evangelizing atheists is a total train wreck, not God at all. So yeah, people trying to reduce God to paper is a real thing in the world. God is not a flat, two dimension concept in a book, He is real. God is not words on a piece of paper, He has personhood.
Maria asks, “The Shack – what do we do with this book and movie?”
Well, if we’re wise we allow it to convict us, “we” being the church, and we use it as a mirror reflecting some harsh truths back at us. We, the church, meaning me too, have become so religiously affiliated, so idolatrous of our own theology, that we have been running about bad mouthing abuse victims, falsely accusing our brothers and sisters of heresy, and generally acting like total wankers, all because of a movie promoting love and forgiveness.
In case anyone needs a recap of the tale, a faithful, dedicated, Christian guy is horrifically abused by his father, a deacon in the church, than he grows up and his child is murdered. He shares a beautiful spiritual experience which led him to forgive the unforgivable and the Christian response from many is…. to promptly accuse him of heresy, attack, and go on the rampage?
Wrong headed. Wrong hearted, too.
Also just for the record, I really dislike the term “heretic.” If you all would be so kind, I much prefer “polemic.” 🙂
The Isaiah 53:5 Project said:
I actually think there is some heresy in both the book and the movie but I think it has been overhyped by legalists to make a point.
Actually, I think the heresy is more artistic license than false teaching which is to be expected in pop art.
Really, people who rail against this kind of thing need to quit taking themselves so seriously. The book and movie are Chritian themed fiction, not serious theological teaching tools.
My take is this. As long as they get conversations about Jesus going and Christians can watch with discernment, there should be no problem.
You make another good point about clean entertainment as well. Anything that is free of nudity, sex, and foul language is better than most of what Hollywood comes out with these days.
LikeLiked by 7 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Well said. The “heresy of artistic license,” now there’s an interesting theme I’ll have to explore someday! That’s a deep subject indeed.
Somewhat funny, there’s a blogger I like but he decorates his site with genuine religious art from the ages, famous stuff, but it tends to get on my nerves because everybody’s naked. A sign of those times, way back when, I suppose.
LikeLiked by 5 people
The Isaiah 53:5 Project said:
There is a lot of nudity in classic art and a lot of people have a problem with it.
I have a formal art education and have been on both sides of an easel during life drawing sessions so my opinion may differ from many.
Nudity, I think, is a hot button issue now because we are an over sexed society and the human body is seen differently now than it was years ago. Now it’s all about sex and arousal where it used to be about beauty, lines, curves, shadows…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Maria, a gentle iconoclast said:
James, as a pastor and teacher you may want to read some reviews of William Paul Young’s nonfiction book entitled Lies we believe about God. Here is one for you.
http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/03/20/the-lies-behind-the-shack/
Any writer’s worldview informs their fiction, for out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Isaiah 53:5 Project said:
I appreciate your comment Maria but I disagree.
If someone lauds The Shack as the greatest thing since the resurrection (which is absurd) then it is indeed heresy that should be shunned. But if someone simply regards it for what it is, Christian inspired fiction, then it’s not a big deal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maria, a gentle iconoclast said:
James, we are responsible before the Lord for what we know. I’ve recommended one source for better information than you have. Please read reviews of Young’s nonfiction. His nonfiction explains his fiction. No fiction is simply that.
LikeLike
The Isaiah 53:5 Project said:
Maria,
I read the source, and have read many others like it, and found it overly harsh, condemning, and not helpful.
People who attend Bible believing churches and read and study The Word are smart enough to see bad theology in pop culture without legalistic hawks condemning them from a high horse.
Really, and I say this with love. I find it insulting to be told I should avoid a movie any movie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maria, a gentle iconoclast said:
Okay. Pulpit & Pen often sounds harsh, I realize that. Simmer down and go to the Lord in prayer. You know this.
LikeLike
The Isaiah 53:5 Project said:
It sounds harsh because it is. Not wrong but not particularly loving or understanding.
Kind of like telling a fellow believer to simmer down and pray 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Spaniardviii said:
What’s up Isaiah 53:5 Project. I like the posts that you have done on your blog, pretty sound and good. Your statements in this post however kind of jolted me a little bit. If you don’t mind I would like to ask you some logical questions in reference to scripture and compare it to the Shack. I will be as polite as possible since I do come out strong but with truth. I’m not going to respond to those who I know are bankrupt of the Holy Spirit which one of them I posted about and those who are defending false teachings like “The Shack” in this post are in the same boat. 🙂
LikeLike
The Isaiah 53:5 Project said:
Hey Spaniard, you may call me James if you’d like.
Anyway, I could discuss the bad theology of the Shack all day long, there was even a post on my blog about just that a few weeks ago.
My point in commenting here is to say that’s it’s just a movie, not church, not Sunday School, and not preaching and people are discerning enough to know the difference.
And, when people rail that it’s of the devil or the same thing as heretics like Joel Osteen, they come across as overly legalistic and off-putting.
Just a movie people can see if they want or not see if they feel convicted.
LikeLike
Spaniardviii said:
Thanks for your response James. My first question: If a book or movie is explaining the nature of God and much much more, does it matter if we are in church or not to know that it is teaching theology?
My second question: Aren’t we who have the Holy Spirit be concerned when someone is promoting, in this case, The Shack a book that contains damning heresy, regardless if it’s fictional or not because of the message that it contains?
My third question: Aren’t we as believers suppose to defend the gospel against a false gospel regardless in what form it manifest and correct, rebuke those who are professing believers in promoting false teachings?
I will ask more after these and get deeper.
Thanks for your time James.
LikeLike
The Isaiah 53:5 Project said:
Spaniard,
I will answer your questions with this. Yes, we are supposed to point out bad theology no matter where it is found, even if it’s in a movie. Can you explain where I have done otherwise? My point is coming out against other Christians with guns blazing because they aren’t damning a movie and condemning all who dare watch it is counterproductive and lacking in love.
I am a big fan of The Walking Dead and Chris Stapleton and I had a Christian tell me recently I must shun both in no uncertain terms or the devil will have his way with me. Taking the time to speak out with fervor against the Shack is not that different the way I see it.
Is it flawed? Sure but, so what? Most things of the world are.
If you must pick a fight with someone, find a preacher who endorses the theology of The Shack as sound, I am not that guy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Spaniardviii said:
lol..I’m only asking questions. It seems that it doesn’t matter how I say it. The walking dead series has nothing to do with teaching people about God. That would be logical. Our concerns for our brothers and sisters in Christ is when a false teacher is teaching a false god and a professing one agree on it. Does that make sense?
Can I continue with my questions?
LikeLike
Spaniardviii said:
it’s alright man, I will stop asking you questions. I will post a comment for the Christians in here. Thanks for your time James.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tiribulus said:
If I had the money I would by THIS for you myself.
I really would love to see your take on that.
There’s no such biblical thing as “artistic license.” That is pure fantasy pulled out of thin air by postmodern art worshiping idolators There is not a single syllable of scripture in support of such a thing.
An intellectually incestuous parade of quotes from big name men is what always comes next when I say something like that, because, like I said, there is literally NO scripture whatsoever.
Yes, “safe” movies promoting paganism are at least as dangerous and deceptive as the bloody, blasphemous pornography so loved by today’s morally degenerate apostate church.
If Jesus or the apostles we’re here in the flesh today, they’d be saying exactly what I just said, just like I just said it.
I get my definition of love from what they left us in the scriptures. Not from a conscience enslaved to the world and my own carnality.
LikeLiked by 3 people
ColorStorm said:
Seriously tirib?
No artistic license? Really? So Christians are machines, robots even, to say and do EXACTLY the same thing?
Newsflash. I have artistic license on my blog. The lady who you are arguing with has it. Michelangelo had it. Any potter who sculps has it. Any painter who interprets scripture has it. Every Christian blogger has it. And the most unlearned believer has it. Whether or not it is used is another thing. It is called gift. and the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
You may want to argue with God for inspiring such artistic license in the hands of he who fashioned ‘the Pieta,’ which result was unto the glory of God.
Then there is Clive Staple Lewis, who very well expressed ‘artistic license.’ There are far more serious battles than with believers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maria, a gentle iconoclast said:
Colorstorm, it’s true that writers and artists can create what they want to – they now have almost limitless artistic license, so to speak. But Christian writers, including IB, and Christian artists have a limited version of this, that is, they must be faithful to God’s Word.
This Is an important battle for believers. We don’t only contend for the faith with atheists as you must.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ColorStorm said:
Agreed Maria.
And the very best of license agrees with God and scripture.
And yes, we all have different fields of operation, but surely you know there is a history of believers wounding their own…
…and without cause.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Tiribulus said:
My dearest Colorstorm
Where is the BIBLICAL precedent for “artistic license” in the representation of the Godhead and the gospel? Please note that I asked for SCRIPTURE. Not the medieval/renaissance pagans and papists, not Lewis, not Tolkien, not Rookmaaker, not Schaeffer, not any of the cheese and wine tasting hipster elite plaguing the church today. SCRIPTURE please.
” I have artistic license on my blog. The lady who you are arguing with has it. Michelangelo had it. Any potter who sculps has it. Any painter who interprets scripture has it. Every Christian blogger has it. And the most unlearned believer has it. Whether or not it is used is another thing. It is called gift. and the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. ”
” ‘the Pieta,’ which result was unto the glory of God. “
I don’t see any SCRIPTURE in here friend. Lemme check again, hang on:
>
>
>
Nope. No SCRIPTURE.
Never is btw. (Oh, sorry. The blue pomegranate. Almost forgot)
These are assertions… see? An “assertion” is where you take the way YOU would like things to be and “ASSERT” it as fact in the absence of any biblical data supporting your position created in your own image..
Lemme try again please. Where do we find “artistic license” in SCRIPTURE for creativity with God’s being and nature or His word and His gospel like Young does with “The Shack”? Let’s start with one verse. Try that.
I’ll be waiting. For the rest of my natural life while you go on and on about everything EXCEPT SCRIPTURE where God’s mind is revealed to us.
===================================
P.S.(Maria too)
If you think I hate “art,” you’re very wrong. I love every good thing the Lord has given. Including art and creativity. What I hate, is the undue elevation of ANY of those things above where I find them in SCRIPTURE. I give everything the weight I see God giving it in SCRIPTURE. In 32 years I’ve found precious little of what we call “the Arts” today in the BIBLE and what I do see bears little resemblance to most of the things you mention in your comment.
Of the many dozens of people (MANY) I’ve had this conversation with, none of them has ever brought me any substance from SCRIPTURE.
They jump up and down, snap, snarl and spit while barking quotations at me from the non-scriptural sources I’ve mentioned, but no real case from SCRIPTURE.
It would impress the living daylights outta me if you were the first, but I’m not holding my breath.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
I think we could make a sound argument supporting some artistic license just by using the bible itself. It is packed with parables, allegories, and also poetry. There are talking donkeys, angels, a burning bush. God has given Himself many names to help us know His nature better. Matthew 23:27 tell us “.. how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings..” We know God is not a bird,but that is called artistic license. God speaks to us through His word in so many different ways. I sometimes say, it is not an IRS manual. It is meant to be read and savored in many different ways.
So the question is not, “is artistic license wrong,” but rather does our artistic license honor God?
LikeLiked by 5 people
ColorStorm said:
C’mon tirib-
The Sistine Chapel by the hand of the great artist portrays a whole BUNCH of scripture if you pay attention.
What, the hand of God to Adam is not ‘artistic license’ of the gospel?
It most certainly is if you pay attention.
C’mon admit you were a little short sighted and legal. Gotta love the grace of God which employs all different parts of the body unto the glory of God.
LikeLike
Mel Wild said:
Yes, amen. You concisely hit the proverbial nail on it pointy little head. The Shack doesn’t necessarily disagree with the Bible, it confronts a certain type of Christianity, unfortunately, the kind a lot of evangelical Christians have bought into.
Why is that we so want a sadistic retributive monster god who dangles people like a spider over the flames? What does that say about us? Then, why is it that when we also call Him love that we don’t see the obvious cognitive dissonance?
What you said here, I thought, was the most important thing we need to be confronted with about this movie:
“Well, if we’re wise we allow it to convict us, “we” being the church, and we use it as a mirror reflecting some harsh truths back at us. We, the church, meaning me too, have become so religiously affiliated, so idolatrous of our own theology, that we have been running about bad mouthing abuse victims, falsely accusing our brothers and sisters of heresy, and generally acting like total wankers, all because of a movie promoting love and forgiveness.”
Our reaction to the movie and book says a lot more about us than it does about whether the story is doctrinally pristine.
LikeLiked by 3 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Amen! Well said.
One of the things that continues to puzzle me, why does “the church,” always seem to want to eat it’s own wounded? I wasn’t aware of how huge the problem was until I got on the internet.
“Never let them see you sweat, they’ll go in for the kill,” is totally NOT the right thing that should be happening.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Isaiah 53:5 Project said:
Absolutely Mel. People who get worked up over stuff like this come across as overly legalistic and people will tune them out.
This is kind of like people who are born again and burn their secular music CDs because they are “of the devil.”
I totally understand how bad theology is everywhere in our culture but this is a movie, not church. If people don’t understand that distinction then I don’t know how they function in life.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The Isaiah 53:5 Project said:
“Our reaction to the book and movie says a lot more about us…”
Absolutely Mel.
I mentioned The Great Divorce to a believer not long ago (I am a fan of the book) and he immediately got on his Lewis is a heretic high horse and started condemning me. Doesn’t matter where this fellow’s heart was or how noble his intentions were, his approach was awful and did nothing to benifit The Kingdom.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mel Wild said:
“Doesn’t matter where this fellow’s heart was or how noble his intentions were, his approach was awful and did nothing to benifit The Kingdom.”
Very true. The wrong heart can negate anyone hearing the message.
About C.S. Lewis, no, he was not an evangelical, but his beliefs lined up with theologians like George McDonald and T.F. and James Torrance, and N.T. Wright, who are highly respected theologians and scholars. It’s also similar to some of the early church fathers who gave us orthodoxy in the first place. The truth is, we don’t know exactly what “hell” is like but we seem to prefer the image of hell given to us by Dante rather than Lewis (also says a lot about us!). But, in the end, that’s all they are…interpretations and attempts at describing something we know little about. The best we can do with spiritual things is use metaphor. And the description of hell in Scripture is sparse and highly metaphoric/symbolic when it is described. To take it with wooden literalism would be misguided, even though a lot of people do. This is why there are different interpretations that are not considered heresy. We should have the same grace that theologians have for one another on these hard topics.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tiribulus said:
buy not by 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
I can’t open your link Tiribulus, it won’t let me. Perhaps I’ll explore some issues around artistic license however,and blog about it. I know there are some people, like you,who are really worried about culture, art, and I have not yet gotten to the bottom of those fears.
Would you like to talk about subliminal messaging, pharmakeia, and the Manchurian candidate? I’m just teasing you Tiribulus, those are huge issues requiring a great deal of time. I’m just trying to tell you, I see far more than you think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tiribulus said:
If I had the money I would by THIS for you myself.
I really would love to see your take on that.
========================================
I think I got the tags right that time 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
It worked. Good tagging! I have not yet finished reading and formulated an opinion yet. I will get to it however.
LikeLike
Maria, a gentle iconoclast said:
IB, are you concerned with Young’s nonfiction book Lies We Believe About God? In it he deconstructs Christian doctrine. His fiction has to be based on his worldview because the Lord Jesus said that out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks, Young denies the atonement, for example, and hell as everlasting punishment which Jesus Himself lovingly warned us about a lot. Why read or watch or recommend Young? Hurting people need to be pointed to the Lord and His Word and not a wolf.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wally Fry said:
Hi IB
You know how I feel. I absolutely agree the book contains things which are heretical. As I have said, I would never personally recommend it to a person wanting to learn about who God is. I certainly would not teach from it, and if my pastor did, I would make the motion to fire him.So, I do find the book problematic in many ways.
On the other hand, people will be reading it. If a person has read it and comes to me to talk about it, the word heresy would never cross my lips. Heresy is meaningless to a seeking person. I would clearly tell them the truth of redemption and salvation, and at some point we might come back to that book.
In the meantime, some kindness is in order
LikeLiked by 7 people
Tiribulus said:
I have never used the word “heresy” with an unbeliever. How I deal with people in the street or in my email or messenger begging for help, is not the same as how I deal with people claiming to speak for the same Jesus I do. That’s a whole different thang.
I believe and proclaim that bible as understood by the historic protestant church no matter who or what it costs me or makes me wrong about.
If people sneer, flee or whine, that’s their problem. Yes. I am fully confident and certain of what I believe.
Not because of some gooey mushy experience with some spirit claiming to be the God of the bible, but who bears no resemblance to him, but because I have a great cloud witnesses who’ve gone before me and on whose shoulders I stand, confirming that this is how they understood God’s word too.
William Paul Young worships a false god and trusts a false gospel. Allowing people that the Lord would put across your path to go on believing otherwise without (gentle and patient) warning is to be an accessory to Satanic deception. Period.
I was in a waiting room with a guy reading a Joel Osteen book. He saw me looking at it and asked if I’d read it. In the ensuing conversation it was clear that this man was a novice in the things of God and was reading it on somebody’s recommendation.
I had to tell him that while the person probably meant well, Osteen’s ministry falls far short of biblical standards and that if he wished to learn Christ rightly I could not help but suggest that he look elsewhere. (short version obviously). That’s’ what Paul or Peter or James or John would have done.
You cant’ just quote Philippians 1 as if it applies to everybody who can pronounce the word J E S U S . Paul was rejoicing that the true Jesus and the true Gospel were being preached because the power is in THEM and not the men bringing it and thats’ the point.
Men like Young and Osteen and a VAST multitude of others today are NOT bringing the true Jesus and the true gospel. Paul wouldn’t be rejoicing that somebody was reading “The Shack” because it has the word “J E S U S” in it. He would deliver Young and Osteen (and a VAST multitude of others today) to Satan like Hymaneus and Alexander and Philtus. Oh yes he would.
Summa ya’ll better get this straight before it’s too late.
Wally may not like my being a “jerk,” but I bet he agrees with me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wally Fry said:
Hi Tiribulus
I suspect you aimed that comment elsewhere, but it came to me LOL.
I bet we actually agree on many things, to tell the truth. I don’t even have a problem with somebody being a jerk, as I sometimes enjoy that pastime myself according to some people.
Osteen and crew? Yeah. Go read my first ever post sometime. Joel Osteen caused me to begin blogging in the first place.
Granted, you may have never used the word heretic when talking to a believer, but some have and that is how I got involved in this conversation in the first place. Not matching some folks point for point does not constitute heresy. It doesn’t necessarily mean that if two disagree, one is a “false teacher” either.
Do IB and I agree on this book totally? No, not especially we don’t. But, this whole thing started as being about not raking people over the coals over this issue so much as trying to restore them in a kind way.
I’ll tell you something else. The way I deal with people here is different than I would deal with a teacher in my church who got wrapped up in this book.
I don’t like the book, but whether I do or not, there are some good opportunities to reach non believers and maybe even get some believers on a better track.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Caeli said:
@Wally Fry, you said, “I don’t like the book, but whether I do or not, there are some good opportunities to reach non believers and maybe even get some believers on a better track.”
You give the enemy a toehold and he will have a stronghold. Just like Paul Young’s own mother initially said the book her own son wrote was pure heresy at first. I heard this from an interview and Paul Young said this himself. Given time and “evidence” of emotional healing from other people, she rejected her initial discernment and was won over to the god her son fashioned. Sad but true.
Jude 3-4 warns us, “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about[a] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.”
Focus on the last sentence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wally Fry said:
Which last sentence are you referring to Caeli, so I know what you meant
LikeLike
Caeli said:
“They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wally Fry said:
Um…yeah.
Let’s make this easy.
Show where grace has been perverted or Jesus Christ been denied here.
Show me somebody who is ungodly, except by your own estimation.
This entire conversation started because somebody suggested we deal with each other kindly and not have each other for lunch.
Does doctrine matter greatly? Yep sure does. Does getting every T crossed and every I dotted in accordance with my particular interpretation of every single word of Scripture have anything to do with Salvation? Heck no, and amen it doesn’t, or I would personally have been in a pickle when God gloriously saved me.
Now, you go ahead and start tossing around my “immaturity” again if you feel the need, or dress me down because I “like” things you don’t agree with, or post memes you find bothersome. You just prove my point.
You, in fact, are undermining the doctrine of grace by attaching some list of proper doctrinal points that are necessary for one to have a saving relationship with our Lord.
Remember, the opposite of license(which obviously concerns you, and it should. It concerns me.)is….drum roll…..legalism.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Caeli said:
For someone who likes to toss around “kindness” and forgiveness and bring about old grievances is proof you need to listen to your own advice.
I have forgotten the old exchange and picked on what you said and stated what I have witnessed but if you must bring it up again to make your point, you have every right to.
I merely quoted Scripture here and if you are being offended by that, I think there is another issue in question. You can “ascribe” legalist and Pharisee to me. It doesn’t bother me. Even people said Jesus was demon-possessed at one time so I’m in good company.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
Caeli
No one has been unkind to you. I have disagreed with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Caeli said:
General insinuations. Even if you said it straight up, I know my standing with God so any labels do not threaten me.
However, people who gets their validation from other people vacillate and change their views whenever it’s convenient for them. That’s what you call a doubleminded man. You have studied James right? I think he has verses there about that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
Really? Tell me how I am double minded Caeli. This is absurd.
I have made my thoughts about this book crystal clear, as well as my thoughts about how we can better deal with those involved with it. Just because you cannot reconcile doctrinal correctness with actually getting along with people does not make me double minded.
You toss around words like..ungodly…double minded….and then accuse me of unkindness when I don’t do it exactly your way?
News flash. for you. A person does not have to be completely polarized on every single matter in order to be firm in their faith.
Finally. Yes…I have studied the Book of James. Rather extensively in fact. Written ABOUT it extensively in fact.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Caeli said:
“You toss around words like..ungodly” – The verse I quoted was Jude 3-4. It warns us of ungodly people who have crept into the church… not MY words, but in fact, a quote from The Bible. If you are offended by Scripture, sort that out with God.
You need to study it more. Easy to give advice and hard to follow your own… Sorry to have bruised your ego here. Not my intention but if allegiances with people trump God in your life, that in itself has become your idol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lovelifeandgod said:
Pointing fingers and obsessing over theology to the point where everyone is a heretic is the reason that I drifted away from God for a year; it was not God’s fault, it was the church, and it took me a while to understand that. I was obsessing over everything I thought and everything I did and it caused me both physical and spiritual pain; I felt guilty all the time and it made me hit a terrible point of depression. I did not feel “free” in Christ because I was listening to all the cries of heresy and terrified that I would slip up. Religious OCD – it’s a real thing in the world. I prayed that if God wanted me, then could He please teach me how it all works, without any lenses from the world (and from the church, sadly) to muck it up – to reveal His true nature to me. He did so, little by little, and I turned back to reading the Bible with a clearer vision.
Why do we need to scare people to be obedient to God? We need to lovingly point people to keep their eyes on Him and His Word, and pray for them to keep the right path because that is how they will flourish. Obviously we would not recommend that they get their grounded opinions about God from anywhere but the Bible, but we don’t need to cry heretic all the time. In reality, we are all “heretics” because even if we are saved we can’t actually get everything perfectly in this life, and if you think otherwise, I’m sorry but you’re actually not thinking in line with the Bible. The point is that we are all progressing towards perfection as we rely on God and His Word to change us, but we can’t truly be perfect as long as we live in this flesh. And if we have to drive people to sheer fear and guilt to make them “progress,” then we will actually get nowhere.
LikeLiked by 7 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Amen, Ada. This is an issue that really grieves me because I know so,so many people who have been driven away from the church,driven away from the Lord Himself,due to the behavior of His followers. To hold people in condemnation, to falsely accuse them, to make them feel cast out of the “cool kid’s club,” these are grievous things to do to people, and to do them while hiding behind Christ’s name, strikes me as pretty serious. I really urge people not to do that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tiribulus said:
Wally I think mistakenly takes me as saying: Granted, you may have never used the word heretic when talking to a believer,…
Wally, you said the following
If a person has read it and comes to me to talk about it, the word heresy would never cross my lips. Heresy is meaningless to a seeking person.
By “seeking person,” I took you to mean an as of yet still unbeliever. Or maybe somebody who doesn’t have a strong grasp on the gospel and the word, but who may be sincerely trying to learn the truth as it is in Christ. I would burn myself at the stake before attacking such a person who came with honest godly intent who just doesn’t know any better.
Right now Gabrielle has waiting in her Facebook messenger an audio message from me about a woman we have been dealing with for 2 years online. (VERY long story)
I have taken hours and hours with her, teaching her the gospel of grace in the hope that she will be freed from the snare of self centered legalism. Praying with and for her, begging God to give her peace and freedom. She’s been saved less than three years and fell under some horrific teaching early on. (Trying to get her into a good local church, which is always the goal.. I/we will not let them become dependent on me/us )
Those chains don’t come off easily and they did a real number on her. She is terrified that she has blasphemed the Holy Ghost and is unsaveable She is TRYING sometimes,(beating my head on my keyboard) but it never crossed my mind to call her a heretic. I have all the time and the patience in the world for someone like her, and believe me, she’s only one.
She is a very different story from people claiming to already know the word who mangle it beyond recognition in a postmodern soup of neo-ecumenical inclusivism that didn’t exist until the last few decades of the spiritually decomposing western world.
——————————————————————-
You have a couple good points in there I want to respond to Wally, but I have to go for a while 🙂 I did want to clarify that thogh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
I understand totally…like beckons. I’ll be semi around…maybe LOL
LikeLike
paigeaddams said:
I never read the book, but I totally loved this movie! Lol, and now I have to go read the book. It really was beautiful, and I agree with you – I can’t see what all the outrage is about. Lol, then again – I have been told I don’t Christian right. 🙂 Thanks for sharing!
LikeLiked by 3 people
insanitybytes22 said:
“I have been told I don’t Christian right”
LOL! That’s adorable.We should make bumper stickers!
In truth, none of us “Christian right.” That’s kind of the whole point and why we need a Savior. If it were possible for anyone to truly “Christian right,” than we would not need mercy, forgiveness and salvation.
LikeLiked by 3 people
paigeaddams said:
Lol – we could totally rock some t-shirts too! 😀
And absolutely – none of us are perfect, but God loves us anyway. Flaws, quirks and all. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Amen! God loves us, flaws and all. It’s in those flaws that He often does His best work.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Maria, a gentle iconoclast said:
IB, in responding to one of the listed statements, you wrote this: “We are all on a journey to Christ.” You must know that the Bible doesn’t say this, but rather that we are children of wrath whom the Lord came to rescue. If you don’t understand this, how can you teach? Before I say more than is kind, I’m going.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
I’m sorry you’re so angry with me, Maria.
Suppose you are right, suppose we are children of wrath? Have you not been redeemed, do you not claim the blood of Jesus Christ? Have we not been transformed, become His beloved?
Romans 5:9, “Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him!”
1 Thessalonians 5:9, “For God has not appointed us to suffer wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
When one is a child of wrath, one is angry and wrathful towards others. When one is a child of grace, one can extend grace to others.
I always turn towards the woman with the perfume and the beauty and wisdom to be found in those words Luke 7:47, “Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mel Wild said:
Hey IB, I’ve reading the comments here. I’ve read The Shack, have seen the movie, read “Lies The Church Believes About God” and heard Paul Young himself speak specifically on these things. Like you said about after seeing the movie, I’m still wondering what the “damnable heresies” specifically are?
The only one I could find that might be construed as “damnable” is the accusation that he’s a universalist. But he’s not a universalist. He believes in “universal salvation” which is not the same thing. Some of the polemic articles I’ve read didn’t even represent him correctly so I’m still wondering.
Btw, I’m not talking about honest differences in doctrinal interpretation (Calvinism vs. Arminianism, etc.) We probably have disagreements there. But are we saying he’s not an approved evangelical/reformed Christian or are we saying he’s not a Christian? There’s a vast difference. I’m wondering if we’re defending our preferred doctrinal interpretation here or the faith?
LikeLiked by 4 people
"A" dad said:
Matthew 24:35
35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
John 7:23-25
23 Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath?
24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”
Memi, while there are lots of ways to be Godly, they all have to be Word grounded, and even “correct”. Though “correct” is not always the same for every individual, “correct” is always Word grounded.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MJThompson said:
Your list of the so-called 13 heresies supposedly found within the movie screamed for my attention, demanding a proper theological evaluation, but I resisted. Your personal profession of faith is quite adequate – and need I offer? – I completely agree.
Be that as it is, I ‘m now compelled to author a new Article on the subject. LOL!
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
LOL! Glad to help. I look forward to reading them.
LikeLike
violetwisp said:
Interesting post and discussion, it’s brought a lovely group of people together. I’ll have to follow Maria.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tiribulus said:
What it is Violet 🙂 Nice to see you out and about.
LikeLike
violetwisp said:
Nice to see you working out on a Christian blog. To similar effect. 🙂 I’ll keep an eye out for the questions you’re too busy to answer, they’re always good ones.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
What I find so fascinating Violet, is that my lovely group of detractors seem a whole lot like your kind of people.
LikeLike
Tiribulus said:
Gabby says: “What I find so fascinating Violet, is that my lovely group of detractors seem a whole lot like your kind of people.”
That madaam is a great steaming pile of bovine fecal matter. O:)
It is actually you who shares an epistemological foundation with them .Exact same autonomous man-centered uncertainty.
I’m being quite serious. Besides. Unlike them, I actually care about you. (and them 🙂 )
LikeLiked by 1 person
MJThompson said:
“That madaam is a great steaming pile of bovine fecal matter” ??? Regardless of how ‘eloquently’ or ‘satirical’ you present dung, it remains dung, it smells like dung, and is as worthless as dung – which Paul rightly declared as the value of his entire life without Christ!
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
I so wish that were bovine poo, Tiribulus.
When both my evangelizing atheists and my Christians are out portraying God as a vindictive, abusive, monster and testifying to His endless wrath, I grow a bit concerned.
Not trying to be unkind here, but I often wonder which group is more successful at driving people away from Christ?
LikeLiked by 4 people
violetwisp said:
I agree. While you’re under attack for not understanding Christianity correctly, I’m under attack for not understanding Life correctly. Humans definitely follow a pattern, regardless of their outlook.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spaniardviii said:
These are questions for all real believers in Jesus Christ who are defending heresy and the promoter of it.
When someone that you know who professes to follow Jesus Christ starts to declare to you one day that he/she believes that God is this and that etc which contradicts the revealed God of the Bible, what would we as believers do? Do you get a righteous anger for your friend believing and teaching a false depiction of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit? Knowing full well that it will lead someone to hell because it’s the wrong god?
Proverbs 27:6
Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.
Isn’t it loving to rebuke a friend that’s teaching lies about the nature of God? Doesn’t Proverbs 27 teaches that those who don’t rebuke a friend who is promoting false teachings, really is acting as an enemy?
I have been called Doctrine police which by the way I take it as a compliment. Aren’t we as Christians suppose to hold tightly to sound doctrine which just means the teachings of Christ as seen in 2 Timothy 1:13 which says, Hold on to the pattern of sound teaching you have heard from me, with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:9
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Regardless if it’s your friend or family member, aren’t we as Christians suppose to refute those who teaches and opposes it and everyone else who defends The Shack? Do we as Christians suppose to love truth above those who promote darkness that sends people there?
May all true Christians fight for the truth and for the honor and glory of our savior Jesus Christ.
Anyone who promotes and defends a person regardless who there are, the Shack which is another gospel are sinning against the Living God. On judgment day you will answer for that. Discernment seems to be scarce.
LikeLiked by 2 people
MJThompson said:
Your desire to proclaim ‘sound doctrine’ is indeed commendable, and we should be discerning and always ready to give account of our hope to those who inquire. At the same time (the other side of the same ‘coin’) we must do so in meekness and humility – in love.
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 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, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. … And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love” 1Cor 13:1-3, 13.
The verses you quoted are addressed to the individual believer and are matters of personal responsibility towards maintaining our own dependence on sound doctrine – NOT a call to zap others with our ‘superior knowledge’. Yes, we should teach towards the perfection of the saints, but it must be Spirit-led, under His anointing – NOT ‘my’ personal proclivity to ‘share’.
Remember, ONLY those actually ‘drawn’ by the Father (through an anointing of the Holy Spirit) can come to Christ. Apart from Christ we can do nothing,
“Sanctify the Lord in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” – 1Pt. 3:15.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spaniardviii said:
Hey MJ, hope you are doing well. Tell me then how in a loving way can I rebuke a professing Christian that they are teaching false doctrine? No matter how I say it it will always offend the individual and that’s because of pride and an unwillingness to submit to God’s Word. Look I have gotten rebuked by a friend of mine and I took it like it was God rebuking me through him and guess what I changed. False doctrine is false whichever way you look at it, you can turn it around put it upside down and anyway around, it will always be false. You can tell someone with a smile on your face that they are teaching a false gospel and trust me, they won’t take it right. The ones that do take it are those with the Holy Spirit who don’t know the scripture that well and when you point it out that they are in error then they conform to the truth of scripture.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Spaniardviii said:
You said-“The verses you quoted are addressed to the individual believer and are matters of personal responsibility towards maintaining our own dependence on sound doctrine – NOT a call to zap others with our ‘superior knowledge’. Yes, we should teach towards the perfection of the saints, but it must be Spirit-led, under His anointing – NOT ‘my’ personal proclivity to ‘share’.”
2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.
You are twisting the meaning of scripture because in Timothy it is very clear that even though it was address to Timothy it is also for the rest of believers as seen in 1 Thessalonians 1:6 which says, And you became imitators of us and of the Lord when you welcomed the message with the joy of the Holy Spirit, in spite of your great suffering.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MJThompson said:
Your reply – “You are twisting the meaning of scripture because in Timothy it is very clear that even though it was address to Timothy it is also for the rest of believers…” – unfortunately missed my intention. Of course you are right “it is also for the rest of believers” – YOU and I are two of THOSE believers. NY an ‘individual’ I hoped to convey the sense in which it is a PERSONAL admonition (1st to Timothy then to others) to be applied PERSONALLY in CONTRAST to a call to proclaim the admonition to others.
I certainly did NOT twist Scripture, although your understanding of what I shared may well be (twisted). No offense intended, but as you rightly stated, false doctrine remains false, regardless of its reception.
As for your other comment (in an earlier reply): “No matter how I say it it will always offend the individual and that’s because of pride and an unwillingness to submit to God’s Word”. IB ran an Article comparing Patients to Criminals in an effort to arose our sensibilities for the need to treat fellow believers with good ‘bed-side manners’ as we endeavor to fulfill our personal call to bind up the ‘broken-hearted’. God has given each believer the ministry of reconciliation, NOT condemnation.
Too often attempts to ‘correct’ – how ever well intended – are construed as merely offensive and judgmental. Indeed, when the Spirit of God illuminates truth to a soul ready to receive, the result is glorious! But too frequently, those anxious to proclaim the truth, like Peter slashing off Malchus’ ear, Jump ahead of the Lord, NOT waiting for His guidance or anointing. The result inflicts more harm than hoped for good. Peace!
LikeLike
Spaniardviii said:
No offense taken, I’m glad to see that you agree with the verses that clearly command believers to proclaim the gospel and correct those who are in error.
I would disagree with you as myself and Tiribulus quite understand this “The verses you quoted are addressed to the individual believer and are matters of personal responsibility towards maintaining our own dependence on sound doctrine – NOT a call to zap others with our ‘superior knowledge’.” to mean that the Christian is to be in right doctrine but not to correct someone who is in the wrong. Now, if that is not what you meant than good but that is what I understood.
You did also say, “Yes, we should teach towards the perfection of the saints, but it must be Spirit-led, under His anointing ” Well the only reason I’m saying anything to anyone is because the Holy Spirit has directed me to do so.
You said-“Remember, ONLY those actually ‘drawn’ by the Father (through an anointing of the Holy Spirit) can come to Christ. Apart from Christ we can do nothing,”
How do you think that the Father draws people to Himself MJ? The answer is found in
Romans 10:17 which says, 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
God will draw a person by a believer telling them the good news and the Holy Spirit will use God’s Word to convict that individual.
If you still think that I twisted your meaning than point me to your exact quote and show me where I misunderstood.
LikeLike
Tiribulus said:
““Sanctify the Lord in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” “
Who are those “who ask” Thompson? Professing believers or rank pagans?
LikeLiked by 1 person
MJThompson said:
Both, depending on which side of Christ they are when you encounter them. If “rank pagans” sharing should involve introducing Christ, NOT doctrine. For those who are professing believers, apologetics should be confined to their existing levels of understanding – precepts are built upon formerly properly established precepts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
CC said:
Really lovely post..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tiribulus said:
MJThompson
How bout some minimal context?.
13-Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? 14-But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, 15-but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16-and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.
THEN:
FOLLOWED BY:
AND
THEN v.17
I asked you who are the “those” whom Peter assumes his audience is interacting with in this passage, professing believers or rank pagans, and you answered with:
Do you really believe that writing in the early 60’s of the first century, during the reign of that bloodthirsty barbarian Nero, to the saints in “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” all Roman provinces in Asia minor, that the apostle Peter intended his readers to understand him to be talking about misguided believers? Really?
I respectfully urge you to reconsider. He was talking about their Roman overloads by whose hand he would soon lose his own life. “Gentleness” and “reverence” are for pagans. Even ones who are persecuting and eventually torturing and killing you. Preachers of false doctrine are never dealt with with “gentleness” and “reverence” in either testament.
You can argue all you want friend. but that’s how it is.
That’s point number 1.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MJThompson said:
Tribulus – I disagree with your interpretation(s). I see no need to apologize to you for holding a different view, but if you feel slighted by ANYTHING I shared, I do hope you find whatever vindication you desire through the grace of God, ever sufficient. If you seek justification or empathy for your obstinance, I cannot oblige. I am a theologian (of which you likely disdain), an ordained minister, pastor/teacher/counselor by vocation and profession since 1980. Therefore my understanding and proclamation of spiritual ideology is founded upon the culmination of my personal experiences starting with an encounter with Christ that transformed me from ‘darkness into light’. I cannot deny THAT. No argument against it will ever invalidate my relationship with God, nor negate the leading of the Holy Spirit into TRUTH.
In your own words – “You can argue all you want friend. but that’s how it is.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tiribulus said:
The only thing I seek is your more accurate interpretation? You seem to consider yourself highly qualified to correct me.
I now stand prepared for that correction. I really do. Prove me wrong and you will have my sincere and public gratitude for having led me into more truth than I had before. Being proven wrong in the things of the Lord is a blessing indeed. What child of God could object to truth?
Please give me an exegetical/expositional reason to believe that Peter was including misguided fellow believers in his warnings in this passage.
=============================================
You also said: “sharing [the gospel with rank pagans] should involve introducing Christ, NOT doctrine.”
To which I responded with:
“Define “doctrine” for me please sir. That’s a serious request. Ya’ll keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..”
Could I prevail upon you sir to please also answer that simple question? When you have, I will answer yours in the other thread. You can’t reasonably expect folks to answer your questions if you refuse to answer theirs asked first ya know.
LikeLike
MJThompson said:
Sir, I respectfully reject any temptation to regard your reply as mere sarcasm. In a sincere desire to accommodate your request, I suggest we correspond via direct personal email. Mine is mjthompsonent@yahoo.com. I look forward to resolving matters of SPECIFIC reference. Peace!
LikeLike
Tiribulus said:
MJThompson: “Sir, I respectfully reject any temptation to regard your reply as mere sarcasm. In a sincere desire to accommodate your request, I suggest we correspond via direct personal email. Mine is mjthompsonent@yahoo.com. I look forward to resolving matters of SPECIFIC reference. Peace!”
I promise you. I was not and am not being sarcastic, but I prefer to do it publicly where it started. This is not a personal thing between you and I. Not for me. It’s a difference of scriptural interpretation. Others would benefit from that dialog. If it were some personal issue, I’d agree to take it offline.
=====================================================
“As for ‘my’ definition of ‘doctrine’ = … teaching … Scripturally, the use of the term is found in letters to Titus and Timothy by Paul, exhorting the acceptance of ‘sound’ doctrine, inferring that NOT all doctrines are true.”
With my redaction, that’s what it means.
Words built on that stem ( διδαχή ) occur 30 times in the New Testament. All 4 gospels, Acts, Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, 2nd John and the apocalypse. It’s where we get our English words, “didact, or didactic. Teacher or teaching. The concept is also everywhere even where the specific word is not.
The gospel IS doctrine. A Jesus who is not God is a false Christ who can’t save anybody. (for instance) That’s doctrine. You cannot preach Christ doctrine free.
We are commanded to preach sound doctrine and to excommunicate those who do not. Paul did so himself. You are correct. Not all doctrine is sound. In fact, most of it today is false. God has graciously left us His word so we can know the difference.
I trust those who went before me unless given overwhelmingly persuasive reason not to. I have found their work to be a galactic blessing and safety net against the parade of postmodernism plaguing today’s western church.
When someone tells me they’re reformed, I compare what they say to historic reformed orthodoxy from which that word gets it’s meaning. If I find that what they say is mortally incompatible with historic reformed orthodoxy, they are not reformed, no matter what else they may try to affirm.
SO. When you say IB is under no obligation to agree with those guys, that’s fine. Then she needs to stop claiming to be reformed.
People cannot self identify as a holding a family of views out of one side of their mouth, while denying those very views out of the other. It works no better with theology than it does for gender.
LikeLike
MJThompson said:
Tribulus – I understand your reasons for continuing exchanges between us on this ‘public’ forum. However, it is a blog monitored by its creator (IB). In respect of that fact, I offered a more personal means of correspondence.
You have posed specific questions to ME, so I do not agree that as you stated: “This is not a personal thing between you and I”. But, I also respect your opinion that: “Others would benefit from that dialog”, so, in light of THAT, with Gabrielle’s approval, I’ll answer.
To your statement: “You cannot preach Christ doctrine free.” If that were true, the effectiveness by which I have preached Christ to NON-BELIEVERS is erased. I purposely DO NOT intertwine ‘doctrine’ (teachings about spiritual realities – i.e. the kingdom of God, soteriology, eschatology, the trinity and the co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, etc. – at least 99 essential teachings underscore the important tenants of the Christian FAITH) with the most important FIRST step of fulfilling the Great Commission – which is preaching the Gospel. But, WHAT ‘gospel’?
I offer the following, NOT as an argument to be debated, but precisely MY personal belief. You are entitled to acknowledge it, refine it, or fully reject it – that is your right to opinion, in which case I’m content to agree to disagree with you – I take no offense.
MY personal experience with Christ is MY ‘gospel’. Your personal experience with the SAME Christ is YOUR gospel. In The New Testament there are four Gospels, each similarly different personal testimonies by different individuals based upon their unique perspectives. Of course, being contained in Scripture, THEY are by Divine Inspiration, whereas yours and mine may or may not necessarily be so inspired. All are different views of the SAME Christ – the PERSON.
Rather than preaching ‘doctrine’ to a non-believer, I preach Christ, the person. Scripture clearly admonishes that “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” – Jn. 6:44. Also, until they receive Christ and become born again by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they are NOT even capable of discerning doctrine properly.
“The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” – 1Cor.2:14.
“When the Spirit of truth comes, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you” – Jn. 14:7.
Therefore, I distinguish between Christ and doctrine. I realize that in order to properly introduce the PERSON of Christ a certain amount of His teachings (doctrine) must be shared as well. But the Gospel relative to ‘DOCTRINE’ is merely ONE of many doctrines that make up the totality of ‘sound doctrine’ necessary for godly spiritual growth – of a true believer. Indeed, once a person has been saved, the indwelling Holy Spirit then guides them into a fuller understanding of TRUTH (sound doctrine). To the true believer, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is an important doctrine – for THEM. But, just as the ‘doctrine’ of any organization is only shared and relevant to its members, the fact is, Christian doctrine is never intended to be shared with its non-members (because it requires spiritual discernment, under the anointing the Spirit of Christ).
“But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His” – Ro. 8:9.
For these primary reasons, DOCTRINE is for the true believer. Introduction to Jesus Christ is the Gospel to be preached to all the world. Yes, doctrine is part of THAT message, but only SUBSEQUENT to a person’s acceptance of Christ, where upon he/she receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (becoming born again). That experience perpetuates an eternal right relationship with God, the Spirit of Christ within confirming its validity to the individual new believer, forever sealing them destined to share eternity with God.
Systematic Theology researches and examines each doctrine (of which there are at least 99 others) to properly discern its compatibility with Scripture, proper interpretation, and correlation to all other doctrines of Christianity.
I have posted to my blog a fairly concise report on my personal research regarding many of the most important doctrines taught throughout Christendom. I try NOT to convey my personal opinions, but rather leave the reader to draw their own conclusions based upon the evidence I provide. I encourage you to consult those Articles for further inquiry @ mjthompsons.wordpress.com. Peace!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tiribulus said:
MJThompson
Do you preach a Jesus Christ to unbelievers who is THE God who in the beginning created the heavens and the earth? Let’s try that.
=============================================
You also didn’t touch my question from HERE which is what this is supposed to be about.
LikeLike
MJThompson said:
As for ‘my’ definition of ‘doctrine’ = the teaching of a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government and the corresponding expectation of allegiance to it. Scripturally, the use of the term is found in letters to Titus and Timothy by Paul, exhorting the acceptance of ‘sound’ doctrine, inferring that NOT all doctrines are true.
LikeLike
Tiribulus said:
MJThompsopn says: “sharing [the gospel with rank pagans] should involve introducing Christ, NOT doctrine.”
Define “doctrine” for me please sir. That’s a serious request. Ya’ll keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..
HEY!!! I made a cultural reference on Gabrielle’s site!! 😀 See that Rebecca?!?!? I’m a backslider now 😀 (jist kiddin)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tiribulus said:
“I so wish that were bovine poo, Tiribulus.
When both my evangelizing atheists and my Christians are out portraying God as a vindictive, abusive, monster and testifying to His endless wrath, I grow a bit concerned.
Not trying to be unkind here, but I often wonder which group is more successful at driving people away from Christ?”
Do NOT even try this one with me.
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/4/47/Gun_Backfire.gif/revision/latest?cb=20131129190112
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
I speak the truth, Tiribulus. I don’t think people are aware of it, or at least I hope not. So, so many atheists are former Christians, even pastors, who have left faith, because the “God of wrath” and the abuse of His followers became more than they could bear.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Tiribulus said:
Oh bull!!!! Not in most cases and there’s no such thing as a “former christian.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
In a theological sense there may be no such thing, but in a very real sense there are numerous people who simply got tired of abuse from those professing Christ, and threw in the towel and walked away.
If I were the character in the shack dealing with abuse at the hands of the church and having just had my child murdered, being called a heretic, accused of blasphemy by brothers and sisters, could well cost me my faith.
Well not me personally, I’m far too spiteful, but kinder, gentler souls, you bet. When people can’t see the love of Christ in their Christians,they no longer have anything to hold onto.
LikeLiked by 3 people
MJThompson said:
IB- I testify that I am one of those ‘former Christians’ WITH NECESSARY CLARIFICATION.
I was raised by a Roman Catholic (‘Christian mother). I received ALL the ceremonial indoctrination into THAT faith – baptism, confirmation, “holy” communion. Feeling cheated by God who robbed me of my mom who died of cancer at 42, I left the faith in abject rebellion.
After a 7 year hiatus, I encountered God in a personal revelation of Christ and became born again, which there-after, I have come to believe is the ONLY valid experience that provides a ‘right relationship’ with God, through grace by the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ – the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, God the Holy Spirit.
As to my earlier departure, the concept of God’s wrath, the need for self-flagellation and unconditional allegiance to the articles of faith proclaimed by the ‘organized church’ (Rome or any other) where far to grievous to bear, without more explanation being provided by church officials. Although I’ve since found clarity (you shall know the TRUTH), to this day I consider myself non-denominational and specifically NOT ‘interdenominational’.
The latter infers some aspect of acceptance of all denominations without specific preference to any. That may sound quite appealing in an effort to provide a sense of unity among believers. However, in practicality, as with all varying points of view, such unity can only go as far as the first point of disagreement over dogma. The non-denominational consider ANY and ALL denominations as intrinsically dividing. Christ is Not divided. SEEK right doctrine from Him, NOT that which any organization that names Christ, then proclaims their unique dogma as the ONLY truth. Christ is the only TRUTH.
As for the “theological sense”, a truly born again believer NEVER departs (from God’s perspective). But many who have NEVER been truly born again (ONLY GOD KNOWS WHO) may be perceived by others to be Christian and as such do depart. Or that which seems to be a departure, is merely a ‘detour’, the final destiny preserved in eternity by God. Many false perceptions lead to false doctrines.
LikeLike
bluebird of bitterness said:
Where did Lewis say “there will be surprises”?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
In “Mere Christianity.” Here is a link to a quote:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/482608-the-bad-psychological-material-is-not-a-sin-but-a
LikeLiked by 1 person
bluebird of bitterness said:
Thank you! I think I need to reread Mere Christianity. It’s been a while.
LikeLike
blooming shadow said:
I so agree about Sam Worthington! Sadly, I also agree that all the hate is puzzling. Hollywood is berated by Christians when it doesn’t make stories of faith, yet berated by Christians when it does. Didn’t John ask Jesus about a similar situation? His answer (Luke 9:50) was “for whoever is not against you is for you.” If this movie draws people to search for God or want know him more deeply, I say amen.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mel Wild said:
Sam Worthington is a Brit. I think he mumbled to disguise his rather poor American accent. It still came through if you listen closely, Other than that, I thought he did a reasonable job.
I agree with you on Christians not being happy with Hollywood when they don’t make Christian movies and then complaining when they do! And what it also reveals is that we’ve made doctrinal agreement more important than God’s love, and for one another, in relationship. So, we become self-appointed sentries guarding the borders we have made by our interpretations, quoting our favorite heretic hunting verses to justify our ungraciousness. But the reality is, there will always be disagreement on a lot of these points. This is why we are to be known by our LOVE for one another instead of our lockstep doctrinal agreement (John 13:35; 17:23).
I’m totally with you. If the movie is drawing people to Christ, it’s a good thing (Phil.1:15-18). As Paul said, I will rejoice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
blooming shadow said:
Well said. Yes, exactly this!! We are to be known by our love. No one was ever brought into relationship without it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tiribulus said:
Violet says: “I agree. While you’re under attack for not understanding Christianity correctly, I’m under attack for not understanding Life correctly. …”
Where have I ever attacked you Violet? Is rightly telling you you don’t understand Christianity an attack?
LikeLike
Tiribulus said:
Violet says: “Nice to see you working out on a Christian blog. To similar effect. 🙂 I’ll keep an eye out for the questions you’re too busy to answer, they’re always good ones.”
AHHHH HAHAHA!! Come on Violet. Example please? Ark? Who can’t give me a definition of “probability” but demands a master’s thesis from me when I’m offering perfectly good existing material from friends of mine?
Try again please.
LikeLike
Tiribulus said:
Gabrielle says”… When people can’t see the love of Christ in their Christians,they no longer have anything to hold onto.’
There certainly is such a thing as spiritual abuse, but, this is called “idolatry.” The exaltation of man over Jesus.
It has a 100% mortality rate when persisted in I just really wanna believe you’re gonna get this one day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
I agree, Tiribulus. We’re to seek the favor of God and not the favor of men.
Imagine what a train wreck I’d be if I believed all the things you’ve said about me! 🙂
Doesn’t matter, we’re still called to reflect the love of Christ. You may be the only person someone sees, your words may be all they have to hang onto.
I am not planning to go before the Lord saying, it’s not my fault Lord, all those other people where just being idolatrous by looking to me…for some mercy and kindness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tiribulus said:
The problem is Gabrielle, that what you keep calling “The love of Christ” is a man centered, postmodern counterfeit.
If feels good to you, but has nothing to do with the God of the bible. Unless you repent, you will go before the Lord having to explain to Him why you spent years helping people believe in an imaginary god you have created in your own image. The most ironic and tragic fiction of all.
I don’t always handle people as well as I should, I admit that. Its’ a sort of self protection mechanism. It seems not to hurt as much just to yell. I never can escape the fact that there are real live human beings on the other side of this screen though and it tears my heart out having to reach the inescapable conclusions that I must if I am to take Gods’ word seriously.
Every single thing I’ve told you since I’ve known you is well established truth with ample testimony in church history. You and these people you attract here have gotten on the world’s train and long ago left God’s station. I do pray that you do not see a finger of self righteous condemnation in your face. 😦 It’s not true.
It’s people like me (and I’m certainly not alone) who are actually showing the love of the true and risen Christ. The fact you and your friends won’t recognize that is out of my hands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
“Unless you repent, you will go before the Lord having to explain to Him why you spent years helping people believe in an imaginary god you have created in your own image.”
How ironic. I believe both Violet and Zande have typed those very same words to me. Repent of your faith in your imaginary Skydaddy! Won’t be happening anytime soon, sorry.
“Its’ a sort of self protection mechanism. It seems not to hurt as much just to yell. I never can escape the fact that there are real live human beings on the other side of this screen though and it tears my heart out having to reach the inescapable conclusions that I must if I am to take Gods’ word seriously.”
Let me speak some truth to you, Tiribulus. You need to hurt. Being vulnerable and suffering greatly is a part of the process. Love is painful and sacrificial. That’s the cross. You don’t get to sit behind your wall of protection while doling out pain to other people and trying to call it righteousness. What that really is, is sheer emotional cowardice.
Those are some harsh words and I don’t mean to imply we aren’t all cowards and some point or that God doesn’t show us great mercy, but it’s the truth.
We are flat out called to love our God to love others as ourselves and you are putting yourself behind a wall as if to say, “suffering for thee but not for me.” It doesn’t work that way, sorry. You don’t get extra credit points for pointing fingers at your brothers and sisters, not when you have 3 more pointing right back at you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tiribulus said:
Gabrielle says: “How ironic. I believe both Violet and Zande have typed those very same words to me. Repent of your faith in your imaginary Skydaddy!”
That is a meaningless comparison.
=====================================
As for the rest?
I’m the one who is always trying to face to face with people Gabrielle. Including you. Remember? I do that because I love them. I love meeting them and getting to know them and ya know what? I love listening to them. I’ll introduce you to some if you like. They’ll tell you, because they tell me. How they appreciate that I’ll sit and silently just listen…. for an hour. And then we hang up. (sometimes) Sometimes they just need somebody to listen to them. (at least for now) I’m all ears.
You have a worldly, hallmark card definition of love my dear. You have it set in your mind that it MUST be unloving to do what I do, despite mountains of biblical and historical support, because YOU don’t like it. Postmodern subjectivity in living color.
I also have a full offline life btw
I’m not hiding behind anything and it you think the internet is any wall of protection, you’re doing it wrong. I’m taking this time to defend myself because I do care what you think about me.
Oh yeah.
Did you really just say “extra credit points?”
You can add that to your list of errors in evaluating my character. I am jealous for His name and His truth Gabrielle, which alone sets captives free.. He loved me and hung onto me when I TRIED to get away.
AFTER standing in the pulpit and (competently) teaching His word, In backslidden drunken terror, flipping Him off and daring Him to kill me.(I actually really did that) Because it would have been a relief just to know that I was lost and reprobate rather than the torment of not knowing. 😦
11 years ago this month, He delivered me from a servile bondage to alcohol (again) when I wasn’t even asking (long story) He came to my far country and pulled my face outta that pigs trough and put his ring on my finger and robe on my back when I should have been cast headlong into that lake of fire..
I’ll be damned before I’ll stand by and watch a whoring biblically illiterate church smear the filth of this world on His face, and pervert and corrupt His word of truth with man centered innovations utterly unknown to His scriptures or His bride in history.
I don’t know it it’s THE great one, but we absolutely ARE in A great apostasy for sure. As soon as somebody becomes wiling to believe their bible no matter who or what it costs them or makes them wrong about, that is plain as day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spaniardviii said:
@Tiribulus, It seems those who defend IB and the Shack have been bewitched. Feelings are driving these professing Christians and making them forget that we are driven by the Word of Truth. Feelings can trick us and deceive us. The Shack is a poison that’s killing many Christians faith because it’s deceiving them through their feelings.
Father in heaven I ask You O Lord, to protect those who are truly Yours by Your Truth. Have mercy on them and forgive their wrong Lord. Give them a strong desire for Your Word O Lord God that they might fight against the lies that the demonic forces of darkness are bringing to deceive those who are Yours, I ask You this in Jesus’ name Amen.
1 John 2:14
I write to you, dear children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tiribulus said:
“The Shack” is just a symptom though brother.
A symptom and a diagnostic tool. How somebody views something like this goes a long way toward telling you what they really believe and what they’re really about.
I say again. Emotions make wonderful servants and tyrannical masters. “Feelings” are from the Lord. He designed us with them and they are therefore good. The intellect and will MUST however govern our emotions and feelings. (That’s biblical)
OR, they WILL govern us and we wind with “The Shack” and an art worshiping, bible butchering church that can’t tell the difference anymore.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Stop trying to see me as the enemy, Tiribulus. I’m not the enemy and neither is the church or a book or a movie. We have a enemy, he’s real enough,but he isn’t me.
LikeLike
Spaniardviii said:
I agree with you 100%, well said.
I think the reason why people don’t accept God’s Word as in conflict with the Shack is because of this verse in 2 Corinthians 4:4 which says, 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
LikeLike
anitvan said:
Haven’t read the book, haven’t seen the movie. Not my cup of tea. So I’m not really in a position to comment on the soundness of the theology presented within the story itself.
But I will say this. If the theology of God (that is, who He is, what He has done for us) that is presented in the movie is false or incomplete – if it’s not a theology of the Cross – my Christian conscience compels me to reject it as such. Especially if the whole point of the story is to *teach* something about what God is like and how He deals with us. Its kinda fair game to have an expectation that what is being taught ought to line up with Truth as it is revealed in the person of Christ through the Scriptures. If it doesn’t, I can’t bring myself to condemn someone whose conscience compels them to reject the message.
This is not a matter of having an “idolatrous love of theology”. It is a matter of conscience and genuine concern for neighbour.
On the other hand, it is not for me to bind the consciences of others. It is the authority of Scripture, and *only* the authority of Scripture that binds the Christian conscience.
That’s not idolatry. That is a conscience which is bound to truth.
I object as well to the idea that this is a matter of “putting theology over relationship”. No, it is not. It is a matter of concern over whether the relationship is with the God of the Scriptures. Because faith in anyone other than the God of the Scriptures IS an idolatrous faith. That is a real concern, born of genuine love for others. What good is relationship if it is with a false God?
Even so, I have no condemnation for those whose consciences find something of value there (again, so long as it is according to Scripture) and don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It’s not wrong to point out what is *right* about the film so long as one uses proper pastoral care to warn against the dangers of misunderstanding it within its full context. I’m not talking the full counsel of God, I’m simply saying if you’re going to give good meat, you better make sure you take out the bones lest someone choke on them.
And for goodness sakes, surely we can do it with a little more grace and humility towards one another, without attempting to bind one another’s consciences where the Bible does necessarily do so.
If your conscience is acting in accordance with Scripture, neither approach is wrong when handled with proper pastoral care.
LikeLike
ectrb1e said:
Haven’t read the book, haven’t seen the movie… I guess my questions would include; does this fiction claim that Jesus was not raised from the dead? Does it claim the Jesus did not come to earth in the flesh? Does it claim the God the Father is actually Satan? Does it claim that Jesus is not the Messiah?
These were the major points of contention between the apostles and the heresies that they spoke against.
Bib Dylan once said that Jesus said , ‘he who is not for me is against me.’ The way that I read it is that He said, ” whoever is not against me is for me”.
I would like to point out that God never went by the name ‘Aslan’ or has a furry mane. He most certainly was never in an asylum like in “The ball and the cross”. When I get to heaven I’ll be sure to discuss with Jesus about getting the heretics Lewis and Chesterton to be cast out of heaven.
There was one other storyteller that was charged with heresy and blasphemy, seems I remember something about the doctrinal experts crucifying him. I’m praying for some perspective and love, unbelieving eyes are watching.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jack Curtis said:
I’ve never happened to see the book or movie as it happened. With that, it seems to me that a positive presentation of constructive human behavior is a gift in this day of comic-strip, violent quasi porn entertainments as routine fare. Fussing over theological niceties seems a bit much.
We have done the Reformation (Or if you are Catholic, Protestant Revolt) and its gruesome, drawn out wars and have reached the now “Post-Christian” era wherein we might do better to reconstruct a wider Christianity rather than nit pick legalistic details that only fragment believers into ineffectual moieties. Or so it seems to me …
Harumph!
LikeLiked by 1 person
dpatrickcollins said:
Great article. So glad you posted this because I had just waded through a truly challenging theologically crazy book by someone I truly respect (I do not like the word heretical, either: It is a great way, like the word Bigot, to end all meaningful conversation) when I stumbled upon “13 heresies in the Shack” and feared the whole Christian world was going to pot. Thanks for providing balance.
Reading through some of the comments and your post itself, it seems the battle for the Christian heart and mind these days hinges on the question whether getting everything theologically perfect, or faithfully remaining in intimate connection to the Perfect, is our highest priority. I choose the latter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mary P said:
.
I think the reason why people don’t accept God’s Word as in conflict with the Shack is because of this verse in 2 Corinthians 4:4 which says, 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
LikeLike
DevBlog said:
.
I think the reason why people don’t accept God’s Word as in conflict with the Shack is because of this verse in 2 Corinthians 4:4 which says, 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
LikeLike
amaranto es said:
.
I think the reason why people don’t accept God’s Word as in conflict with the Shack is because of this verse in 2 Corinthians 4:4 which says, 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
LikeLike
Pingback: Any opinions on the movie the Shack? Shaking the Shack Update-Update — See, there’s this thing called biology…