Category Archives: Jesus Christ

The Aroma of Christ

Posted by Dan C. on

“But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.  For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?” – 2 Cor 2:14-16

The Apostle Paul, in this short passage, tells the Christians at Corinth that they are “the aroma of Christ” to the people around them. Those people are divided into two groups, with the “aroma of Christ” smelling quite differently to each group.

To those who are being saved, that is to those in whom God has done a work of regeneration through the Holy Spirit, the aroma of Christ is a fragrance ‘”from life to life”, from salvation to glorification.

To those who are perishing, that is to those who remain in their unbelief and rejection of Christ, the aroma of Christ is a fragrance “from death to death”, from being dead in sin as they breathe here on earth, to eternal judgment when they die.

It seems easy to understand why the aroma of Christ is a sweet fragrance of life to other Christians, but why does the life of a Christian carry the stench of death to unbelievers? One answer to that can be found in Romans 1:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.” vv 18-19

Paul then tells us that because of such knowledge, men are ‘without excuse’ before the judgment seat of God. He describes how men are given over to all sorts of sin and degradation because they suppress the truth that they already know. He completes this dire scenario with these words:

“Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” – v 32

Paul is telling the Christians at Corinth, and us today, that the reason that the life of a Christian carries with it the stench of death to unbelievers because they not only know God exists, they know their sin and they know they deserve God’s death sentence! Is it any wonder that the aroma of Christ stinks of death to those who are perishing? I think not.

One question comes to mind in this. Why is it that we have so many churches and so many Christians try to ‘attract’ people to Christ by making Him smell ‘sweet’ promises of a better life here and now, instead of letting the aroma of Christ smell to them like it ought, and in fact needs to smell to them, if they are to come to repentance and faith?

WHY?

We ALL Believe in a Limited Atonement.

Posted by Dan C. on

If you believe in the atonement, but you do not believe that all men will eventually be saved, you believe in a ‘limited atonement’. Either you limit the atonement to those who of their own ‘free will’ decide that they want salvation, or you limit the atonement to those whom God elected to salvation before the foundation of the world.

In the latter case, there will certainly be some who are saved because God ‘appointed them to salvation’ (Acts 13:48) and therefore they will come to faith in Christ; a multitude no man can number, we are told in Revelation. In this case, the death of Christ on the Cross actually secured for all eternity the salvation of those chosen by God for salvation.

If man’s natural ‘free will’ limits the atonement to those who make the right decision, not only is the salvation of men ultimately up to those who do so, there is also a possibility, no matter how remote, that all men will reject Christ. After all, Christ died to make salvation ‘possible’ for those who choose rightly, but didn’t actually secure the salvation of any!

I ask you “Which of the above scenarios potentially limits the atonement to the greatest extent?”

I leave the answer to you. Just think about it.

For WHOM, and for WHAT Did Christ Die?

Posted by Dan C. on

by James Smith

“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person–though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die–but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” – Rom 5:6-10

For WHOM did Christ die?

Christ died for the ungodly. Such was my character by nature, for I had not one spark of godliness in me. I was a stranger to the power of godliness. If Jesus died for the ungodly—then why not for me?

Christ died for sinners. Such as were entirely sinful, whose natures were depraved, whose conduct was perverse and wicked. For sinners, who had nothing to recommend them to his notice, or to warrant them to expect any blessing from his hands. If Jesus died for sinners—then why not for me? I am a sinner, a poor miserable sinner. No one ever needed a Savior more. No one ever deserved a Savior less. But as a physician gets fame and honor, by healing desperate cases—may not Jesus get honor by saving me?

Christ died for enemies. Such as were opposed to him, whose hearts were enmity against him, who never thought well of him, or had any desire to be under an obligation to him; nor ever would, if their hearts were not changed by a divine power. Awful to say—but I was an enemy to God, and showed my enmity by wicked works! I never loved him. I had no wish to know him. I dreaded him—because he was holy. I wished there was no God—except he were one that would tolerate and sanction sin; one that would be ruled by my depraved principles and passions. How awful it is to look back, and see what we have been, what we have done, what we have said, what we have been afraid to say—but have thought!

No one knows what is in a man’s heart, but himself. No one knows what is working in a man’s bosom, but himself. How fearful would be the exposure of one’s thoughts! But what can be worse than to be the enemies of the God of love? Such were all of us! Such was I—and yet if Jesus died for the enemies of God, for his own enemies—then why not for me? Yes, though I was ungodly, a sinner, an enemy of God and his Christ; yet as Jesus died for the ungodly, for sinners, for enemies, I will believe that he died for me.

For WHAT did Christ die?

To make an atonement for them. To satisfy the claims which divine justice had upon sinners. To meet all the demands of the righteous and immutable law of God. He allowed them to be placed to his account, To be imputed to his person, so that he became responsible for them. Therefore, he bore them, or the desert of them in his own body on the tree. He put them away by the sacrifice of himself. I would therefore look upon Jesus—as standing in my place, as suffering my desert, as expiating my iniquity, as meeting all the claims which law and justice could make upon me.

Christ died for our sins.

Precious Savior! I do bless your dear and adorable name for becoming my surety, for offering yourself a sacrifice for my sins, and for working out and bringing in a perfect and everlasting righteousness to clothe my soul.

To deliver us from the power of the god of this world, from the spirit of this world, and from its fearful doom. Satan possessed us and wrought in us; the customs of the world controlled us; and we were doomed to suffer with the world. But Jesus loved us, pitied us, and determined to deliver us. He therefore died for us, to remove all legal difficulties out of the way. He procured the Holy Spirit to quicken, teach, sanctify, and emancipate us.

Christ died to deliver us from this present evil world.

Therefore, though IN the world, we are not OF the world—for Jesus died to deliver us from it, raise us above it, and make us useful to it.

His death removed every obstacle, opened a new and living way, and brings down the Holy Spirit into our hearts. So that now we come to God as sinners—as sinners to be pardoned, justified, accepted, protected, preserved, and supplied. By and bye, we shall come to God as saints, as saints to be acknowledged, approved, crowned, and glorified.

Christ died to bring us to God.

Such was the design of the death of Jesus. O, Savior! but for your life and death, I must Lave perished in my sins! I must have been condemned with the world! I never, never would have come to God, until dragged before him to receive an awful sentence from him! I owe everything to you! I trace every good thing I have or expect—to your cross! Without you, I would be the vilest of men, the most wretched being in God’s vast creation! But with you I have hope, I have confidence, I have comfort, I have a prospect of everlasting glory! Blessed be your holy and glorious name forever! I will bless you while I live, and praise your name forever and ever.

I know I have come to God as a poor sinner, and though at times I can only sigh and groan before his throne of grace; yet, if you had not died for me, if you had not pitied me, if you had not sent your Holy Spirit to me—I had never, never come at all. No, I feel confident I never would. If you had not died for my sins, to deliver me from this present evil world, and to bring me to God, I had this day been as I once was, far off from God by wicked works—and had remained so forever. Therefore, I rejoice in your death, glory in your cross, and bless most heartily your dear and adorable name!

____________________________________________________

James Smith (1802-1862) was a predecessor of Charles Spurgeon at New Park Street Chapel in London until 1848. Early on, Read his personal testimony.

When Heaven Rejoices!

Posted by Dan C. on

“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’

Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.”

“Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ ”

“Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

Luke 15:4-10

Many of you will recognize these parables as the two that precede the story of the prodigal son. The longer story of the prodigal commands our attention in a more striking fashion than the shorter parables of the shepherd and the woman. We give more attention to the demonstration of the ‘love that ‘receives’ than the love that ‘seeks’. After all, we like to view salvation as a matter of us seeking God from something deep down in our human nature. The shepherd seeking the one lost sheep and the woman seeking her lost coin present us with a slightly different perspective concerning the salvation of men. We are told that it is Jesus who is the ‘seeker’. On 19th Century commentary provides a beautiful picture:

“It is the Shepherd who rejoices when the sheep is found, the woman when the piece of money is in her hand.What an expression of that which God is! How truly is Jesus the one to make it known! It is on this that all the blessing of man can alone be founded. It is in this that God is glorified in His grace.

The shepherd seeks his sheep, the woman her piece of money: the sheep and the piece of silver are passive. The shepherd seeks and the woman also, until hehat which is sought after is found, because they have an interest in the matter. The sheep, wearied with its wanderings, has not to take one step in returning. The shepherd lays it on his shoulders and carries it home. He takes the whole charge, happy to recover his sheep. This is the mind of heaven, whatever the heart of man on earth may be. It is the work of Christ, the Good Shepherd.

The woman sets before us the pains which God takes in His love; so that it is more the work of the Spirit, which is represented by that of the woman. The light is brought — she sweeps the house until she finds the piece she had lost. Thus God acts in the world, seeking sinners. The hateful and hating jealousy of self-righteousness finds no place in the mind of heaven, where God dwells, and produces, in the happiness that surrounds Him, the reflex of His own perfections.” – John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882)

____________________

I wonder what it sounds like in Heaven when a preacher pronounces a sinner saved because he ‘accepted’ Jesus for a better life, but didn’t confront his sin?

Whosoever Will May Come

Posted by Dan C. on

 “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. – Rev 22:17 (KJV)

That must be one of the favorite verses of evangelical Christians. We use it a lot, with special emphasis on “whosoever”, as if anyone and everyone can or is able, to actually come to Christ. It’s a great thought, but it is it true according to what we are given in Scripture? Perhaps a separate question would be helpful here. “Just who CAN come Christ?

Who can hear? Who thirsts for Christ? Who desires Christ?

CANNOT/WILL NOT

 “No one understands; no one seeks for God.” – Rom 3:11 (Those who don’t seek.)

“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” – Rom 8:7 (The carnally/fleshly minded.)

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” – 2 Cor 4:3-4 (The blind man wearing a veil.)

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience– among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. – Eph 2:1-3 (The dead man – deserving only of God’s wrath.)

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. – John 6:44 (The one not drawn to Christ by the Father.)

“And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” – John 6:65 (The one not granted to come by the Father)

“Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.” – John 10:25-26 (Those who are not His sheep.)

CAN/WILL

 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” – Matt 7:7 (The true seeker.)

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” – John 6:37 (Those the Father gives the Son)

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. – John 6:44 (The one drawn by the Father to the Son)

“And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” – John 6:65 (The one to whom it is granted by the Father.)

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” John 27-28 (His sheep.)

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved—Eph 2:4-5 (Those made alive by God)

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” – Acts 13:48 (Those appointed to eternal life.)

“One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” – Act 16:14 (The one whose heart has been opened to hear and receive the gospel.)

“..even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Eph 1:4-5 (Those chosen and predestined by God for adoption.)

“But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” – 2Th 2:13 (Those chosen for salvation.)

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…” – 1 Pet 1:1-2a (The elect according to the foreknowledge of God.)

Those are but a few of the passages of scripture that address the question “Who CAN come to Christ.?” They say what they say, and ought to be solid food for thought for all of us who name The Name of Christ.. Perhaps we will be more urgent in praying that God will call men and women to Christ, and that He will open hearts; enabling those to whom we witness to Come!

_____________________________________________

Except where noted, all Scripture passages are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV)

The Shack: Helpful or Heretical?

Posted by Dan C. on

A Critical Review by Norman L. Geisler and Bill Roach

The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity by William P. Young (Wind Blown Media, 2007, 264 pp) is a New York Times best seller with well over a million copies in print. Literally hundreds of thousands have been blessed by its message, but its message is precisely what calls for scrutiny.  Responses to The Shack range from eulogy to heresy.  Eugene Peterson, author of The Message predicted that The Shack “has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!” Emmy Award Winning Producer of ABC Patrick M. Roddy declares that “it is a one of a kind invitation to journey to the very heart of God. Through my tears and cheers, I have been indeed transformed by the tender mercy with which William Paul Young opened the veil that too often separated me from God and from myself.” (http://theshackbook.com/endorsements.html). People from all walks of life are raving about this book by unknown author “Willie” Young, son of a pastor/missionary, and born in Canada. He is a graduate of Warner Pacific College in Portland, Oregon.

The Background of the Book
The Shack is Christian fiction, a fast-growing genre in the contemporary Christian culture. It communicates a message in a casual, easy-to-read, non-abrasive manner. From his personal experience, Young attempts to answer some of life’s biggest questions: Who is God? Who is Jesus? What is the Trinity? What is salvation? Is Jesus the only way to Heaven? If God, then why evil? What happens after I die?
             In the final section of the book titled “The Story behind THE SHACK,” he reveals that the motivation for this story comes from his own struggle to answer many of the difficult questions of life. He claims that his seminary training just did not provide answers to many of his pressing questions. Then one day in 2005, he felt God whisper in his ear that this year was going to be his year of Jubilee and restoration. Out of that experience he felt lead to write The Shack. According to Young, much of the book was formed around personal conversations he had with God, family, and friends (258-259). He tells the readers that the main character “Mack” is not a real person, but a fictional character used to communicate the message in the book. However, he admits that his children would “recognize that Mack is mostly me, that Nan is a lot like Kim, that Missy and Kate and the other characters often resemble our family members and friends” (259).

The Basic Story of the Book
             The story centers on a note that Mack, the husband and father in the story, received from “Papa,” who is supposed to be God the Father. It reads, “Mackenzie, It’s been a while. I’ve missed you. I’ll be at the shack next weekend if you want to get together” (19). From this, the story moves through the personal struggles Mack has with such questions as: Why would someone send me this letter? Does God really speak through letters? How would my seminary training respond to this interaction between God and man?  The story takes a turn when Mack’s son almost drowns while canoeing. During the chaos his daughter is abducted and eventually killed. This is what caused Mack to fall into what the book calls “The Great Sadness.” This time period is supposed to reflect his spiritual condition after the death of his daughter and the questions he has been asking for many years.
            Grieved with the death of his daughter and the possibility that the note might be from God, Mack packs his bags and heads for the shack. The point of this journey is to suggest that his traditional teaching, Sunday prayers, hymns, and approach to Christianity were all wrong. He comes to the conclusion that “cloistered spirituality seemed to change nothing in the lives of people he knew, except maybe Nan [his wife]” (63). In spite of being an unlikely encounter with God, Young uses this fictional encounter as a vehicle for Mack’s spiritual journey and encounter at the shack.
            While at the shack, Mack discovers that God is not what we expect Him to be. In fact, God the Father is a “large beaming African-American woman,” Jesus appeared to be “Middle Eastern and was dressed like a laborer, complete with tool belt and gloves,” and the Holy Spirit is named Sarayu, “a small, distinctively Asian woman.” The book identifies these three people as the Trinity (80-82). After trying to reconcile his seminary training with this new encounter with God, he concludes that what he had learned was of no help.

An Evaluation of the Book
            Young’s point is clear: forget your preconceived notions about God, forget your seminary training, and realize that God chooses to appear to us in whatever form we personally need; He is like a mixed metaphor. We cannot fall back into our religious conditioning (91). The Shack attempts to present a Christian worldview through the genre of religious fiction, but just how Christian it is remains to be seen.

Problem One: A Rejection of Traditional Christianity
Beneath the surface of The Shack is a rejection of traditional Christianity (179).  He claims that traditional Christianity did not solve his problem.  Even Seminary training didn’t help (63).  He insists that Christianity has to be revised in order to be understood, reminiscent of McClaren’s Emergent Church book titled, Everything Must Change.  However, one might question whether it is Christianity that needs revision or Christians that need to be revitalized. One thing is certain; Christianity should not be rejected because it has some hypocritical representatives.  To be sure, some Seminary training is bad, and even good Seminary training doesn’t help, if you don’t heed it. But the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.  Christ established the Church and said the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt. 16:16-18).  The Shack, as gripping as its story is, trades a church occupied with people who hear the Word of God  preached for an empty shack where there is neither.

Problem Two: Experience Trumps Revelation
            An underlying problem with the message of The Shack is that it uses personal experience to trump revelation.  The solutions to life’s basic problems come from extra-biblical experience, not from Scripture (80-100).  Non-biblical voices are given precedent over the voice of God in Scripture.  These alleged “revelations” from the “Trinity” in the shack are the basis of the whole story.  While biblical truth is alluded to, it is not the authoritative basis of the message.  In the final analysis, it is experience that is used to interpret the Bible; it is not the Bible that is used to interpret experience. This leads to a denial of a fundamental teaching of Protestantism.

Problem Three: The Rejection of Sola Scriptura
            The Shack rejects the sole authority of the Bible to determine matters of faith and practice. Rather than finding a Bible by the altar in a little old country church and getting comfort and counsel from the word of God, he is instructed to go to an empty shack in the wilderness with no Bible and get all he needs to cope with the tragedies of life from extra-biblical voices. The Shack’s author rejects what “In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture…. God’s voice had been reduced to paper…. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients…. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book” (63).
            However, the Bible clearly declares that “Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added).  Indeed, our comfort is not found in extra-biblical revelations but is realized in that “through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4).  In short, the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice.  No new truth beyond the Bible is needed for doctrine or living the Christian life.  Of course, this does not mean that God cannot bring biblical principles to our minds when needed through various experiences, even tragic ones. He can and He does. Nor does it mean that God cannot guide in circumstances that help us in the application of biblical principles to our lives. He can and He does. But these experiences bring no new revelation. They are merely the occasion for God focusing our attention on the only infallible written source of His revelation, the Bible and the Bible alone. To forsake this fundamental principle is to leave Protestantism for Mysticism.

Problem Four: An Unbiblical View of the Nature and Triunity of God
           In addition to an errant view of Scripture, The Shack has an unorthodox view of the Trinity. God appears as three separate persons (in three separate bodies) which seems to support Tritheism in spite of the fact that the author denies Tritheism (“We are not three gods”) and Modalism (“We are not talking about One God with three attitudes”—p. 100).  Nonetheless, Young departs from the essential nature of God for a social relationship among the members of the Trinity.  He wrongly stresses the plurality of God as three separate persons: God the Father appears as an “African American woman” (80);  Jesus appears as a Middle Eastern worker (82).  The Holy Spirit is represented as “a small, distinctively Asian woman” (82).  And according to Young, the unity of God is not in one essence (nature), as the orthodox view holds. Rather, it is a social union of three separate persons. Besides the false teaching that God the Father and the Holy Spirit have physical bodies (since “God is spirit”—Jn. 4:24), the members of the Trinity are not separate persons (as The Shack portrays them); they are only distinct persons in one divine nature.  Just as a triangle has three distinct corners, yet is one triangle. It is not three separate corners (for then it would not be a triangle if the corners were separated from it), Even so, God is one in essence but has three distinct (but inseparable) Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Problem Five: An Unbiblical View of Punishing Sin
            Another claim is that God does not need to punish sin. He states, “At that, Papa stopped her preparations and turned toward Mack. He could see a deep sadness in her eyes. ‘I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it’” (119).  As welcoming as this message may be, it at best reveals a dangerously imbalanced understanding of God.  For in addition to being loving and kind, God is also holy and just. Indeed, because He is just He must punish sin.  The Bible explicitly says that” the soul that sins shall die” (Eze. 18:2).  “I am holy, says the Lord” (Lev. 11:44).  He is so holy that Habakkuk says of God,  “You…are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong…” (Hab. 1:13).  Romans 6:23 declares: “The wages of sin is death….” And Paul added, “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay’ says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19).
            In short, The Shack presents lop-sided view of God as love but not justice. This view of a God who will not punish sin undermines the central message of Christianity—that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1f.) and rose from the dead.  Indeed, some emergent Church leaders have given a more frontal and near blasphemous attack on the sacrificial atonement of Christ, calling it a “form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful father, punishing his son for offences he has not even committed” (Steve Chalke, The Lost Message of Jesus, 184).  Such is the end of the logic that denies an awesomely holy God who cannot tolerate sin was satisfied (propitiated) on behalf of our sin (1 Jn. 2:1). For Christ paid the penalty for us, “being made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God through him” (2 Cor. 5:21), “suffering the just for the unjust that He might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18).

Problem Six: A False View of the Incarnation
Another area of concern is a false view of the person and work of Christ. The book states, “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this universe, we now became flesh and blood” (98).  However, this is a serious misunderstanding of the Incarnation of Christ. The whole Trinity was not incarnated.  Only the Son was (Jn. 1:14), and in His case deity did not become humanity but the Second Person of the Godhead assumed a human nature in addition to His divine nature. Neither the Father nor Holy Spirit (who are pure spirit–John 4:24) became human, only the Son did.

Problem Seven: A Wrong View of the Way of Salvation          
         Another problem emerges in the message of The Shack.  According to Young, Christ is just the “best” way to relate to the Father, not the only way (109). The “best” does not necessarily imply the only way, which then means that there may be other ways to relate to God. Such an assertion is contrary to Jesus’ claim, “I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes unto the Father except through me” (John14:6).  He added, “He who believes in Him [Christ] is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of  the only begotten Son of God” (Jn. 3:18).  Jesus is not merely the best way, but He is the only way to God.  Paul declared: “There is one God and one mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

Problem Eight: A Heretical View of the Father Suffering
          The book also contains a classic heresy called Patripassionism (Literally: Father Suffering).  Young claims that God the Father suffered along with the Son, saying, “Haven’t you seen the wounds on Papa [God the Father] too?’ I didn’t understand them.  ‘How could he…?’  ‘For love.  He chose the way of the cross… because of love’” (p. 165).   But both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) made it very clear that it was Jesus alone who “suffered” for us on the Cross. And that He did this only through His human nature.  To say otherwise is to engage in “confusing the two natures” of Christ which was explicitly condemned in the Chalcedonian Creed (A.D. 451).  Suffering is a form of change, and the Bible makes it very clear that God cannot change.  “I the Lord change not” (Mal. 3:6).  “There is no shadow of change with Him” (Jas. 1:17).  When all else changes, God “remains the same” (Heb. 1:10-12). 

Problem Nine: A Denial of Hierarchy in the Godhead
The Shack also claims that there is no hierarchy in God or in human communities modeled after Him.  He believes that hierarchy exists only as a result of the human struggle for power. Young writes of God: “‘Well I know that there are three of you.  But you respond with such graciousness to each other.  Isn’t one of you more the boss than the other two…. I have always thought of God the Father as sort of being the boss and Jesus as the one following orders, you know being obedient….’ ‘Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us; only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command…. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power…. Hierarchy would make no sense among us’” (121).
        However, Young cites no Scripture to support this egalitarian view of God and human relations—and for good reasons since the Bible clearly affirms that there is an order of authority in the Godhead, the home, and the church.  Submission and obedience are biblical terms.  Jesus submitted to the Father: “O My Father,… not my will be done but yours” (Mt. 26:39). “He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death…” (Philip. 2:8).  In heaven “then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).  Children are to submit to their parents: Paul urged, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord…” (Eph. 6:1).  Likewise, women are urged: “Wives submit to your own husband, as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22). “The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).  Members are to “obey your leaders” (Heb. 13:17).  Indeed, citizens are commanded “to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient…” (Titus 3:1). 

The hierarchial order in the Godhead is the basis for all human relationships.  And pure love does not eliminate this; it demands it.  The Bible declares; “This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments” (1 Jn. 5:3).  Portraying God as a Mother, rather than a Father, reveals an underlying anti-masculinity in Young’s thought.  He wrote, “Males seem to be the cause of so much of the pain in the world. They account for most of the crime and many of those are perpetrated against women…. The world, in many ways, would be a much calmer and gentler place if women ruled. There would have been far fewer children sacrificed to the gods of greed and power” (148). He does not explain how this would not be a hierarchy if women “ruled” the world.

Problem Ten: Ignoring the Crucial Role of the Church in Edifying Believers
         The Shack is totally silent about the important role the community of believers plays in the life of individuals needing encouragement.  In fact there is a kind of anti-church current born of a reaction to a hypocritical, legalistic, and abusive father who was a church leader (1-3).  However, this is clearly contrary to the command of Scripture.  A bad church should not be replaced with no church but with a better church. God gave the church “pastors and teachers, to equip the saints…for building up the body of Christ…” (Eph. 4:11-12).  Paul said, “To each [one in the body] is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7).  Young replaces a Bible-based church in the wildwood with a Bible-less shack in the wild. Comfort in bereavement is sought in a lonely, Bible-less, empty shack in the wilderness where one is to find comfort by heeding deceptive presentations of God. At this point several scriptural exhortations about being aware of deceiving spirits come to mind (1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 4:1; 2 Cor. 11:14).  As for the need for a church, the Scriptures exhort us “not to forget the assembling together as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as we see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25).  Without the regular meeting with a body of edifying believers, proper Christian growth is inevitably stunted.

Problem Eleven: An Inclusivistic View of Who Will be Saved
         While The Shack falls short of the universalism (“All will be saved”) found in other emergent writings, it does have a wide-sweeping inclusivism whereby virtually anyone through virtually any religion can be saved apart from Christ.  According to Young,, “Jesus [said]…. ‘Those who love me come from every system that exists.  They are Buddhists or Mormons, Baptist, or Muslims,…and many who are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institution…. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians.  I have no desire to make them Christians, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa….’ ‘Does that mean…that all roads will lead to you?’  ‘Not at all…. Most roads don’t lead anywhere.  What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you’” (184).

Again, there is no biblical support for these claims.  On the contrary, the Scriptures affirm that there is no salvation apart from knowing Christ. Acts 4:12 pronounces that “There is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved.”  1 Tim. 2:5 insists that “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”  And Jesus said, “unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24).  For “whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (Jn. 3:36).  And “whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (Jn. 3:18).

Problem Twelve: A Wrong View of Faith and Reason
        The Shack embraces an irrational view of faith. It declares: “There are times when you choose to believe something that would normally be considered absolutely irrational.  It doesn’t mean that it is actually irrational, but it is surely not rational” (64).  Even common sense informs us that this is no way to live the Christian life. The Bible says, “’Come now let us reason together,’ says the Lord” (Isa. 1:18:). “Give a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15); “Paul…reasoned with them from the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). “These were more fair-minded [because] they searched the Scriptures daily…whether these things be so” (Acts 17:11). “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but test the spirits whether they are of God” (1 Jn. 4:1, emphasis added in above quotes).  Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living,” and reasonable Christians would add, “The unexamined faith is not worth having.”

Problem Thirteen: It Eliminates Knowledge of God
       According to Young, God is wholly other; we can’t really know Him.  He wrote: “I am God. I am who I am.  And unlike you…” (96). “I am what some would say ‘holy and wholly other than you’” (97). “I am not merely the best version of you that you can think of. I am far more than that, above and beyond all that you can ask or think” (97).  One basic problem with this view is that it is self-defeating.  How could we know God is “wholly other”?  Wholly other than what?  And how can we know what God is not unless we know what He is?  Totally negative knowledge of God is impossible.  Further, according to the Bible, we can know what God is really like from both general and special revelation. For “Since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen…even his eternal power and Godhead…” (Rom.1:20).  As for special revelation, Jesus said, “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also” (Jn. 14:7) and “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (Jn. 14:6). God does speak of Himself in His written Word (2 Tim. 3:16), and when He does it tells us something about the way He really is. His words are not deceptive but descriptive.

Problem Fourteen: It Entails Divine Deception
         According to The Shack, God is revealed in ways contrary to His nature. The Father is revealed as a black woman and having a body when He is neither. The reason given for this is that in love God revealed Himself in ways that would be acceptable to the recipient (who had a bad father image) but were not so.  But this is case of divine deception.  God is a spirit (Jn. 4:24) and He has no body (Lk. 24:39). God is never called a “Mother” in the Bible. It is deceptive to portray God’s Nature in any way that He is not, even though ones motive is loving (91-92).  A lie told with a loving motive is still a lie.  Of course, when God speaks to finite creatures He engages in adaptation to human limits but never in accommodation to human error.  Portraying God as having a black female body is like saying storks bring babies.  Young calls it a “mask” that falls away (111). But God does not have masks, and He does not masquerade.  “It is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18). Paul speaks of the “God who cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). It is only the Devil, the Father of lies, who engages in appearing in forms he is not. “For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). To be sure, there are figures of speech in Scripture, speaking of God as a rock or a hen, but they are known to be metaphorical and not literal, since there are no immaterial rocks and God does not have feathers.

Conclusion
          The Shack may do well for many in engaging the current culture, but not without compromising Christian truth. The book may be psychologically helpful to many who read it, but it is doctrinally harmful to all who are exposed to it. It has a false understanding of God, the Trinity, the person and work of Christ, the nature of man, the institution of the family and marriage, and the nature of the Gospel. For those not trained in orthodox Christian doctrine, this book is very dangerous. It promises good news for the suffering but undermines the only Good News (the Gospel) about Christ suffering for us.  In the final analysis it is only truth that is truly liberating.  Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32).  A lie may make one feel better, but only until he discovers the truth.  This book falls short on many important Christian doctrines. It promises to transform people’s lives, but it lacks the transforming power of the Word of God (Heb. 4:12) and the community of believers (Heb. 10:25). In the final analysis, this book is not a Pilgrim’s Progress, but doctrinally speaking The Shack is more of a Pilgrim’s Regress.

*Dr. Geisler has a BA, MA, ThM, and PhD (in philosophy). He is an author of some 70 books and has taught philosophy and ethics at the College and Graduate level for fifty years. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary (www.VeritasSeminary.com). His articles and materials are available at www.normgeisler.com.

"All you need is a personal relationship with Jesus!"

Posted by Dan C. on

Picture this conversation between a couple of guys, perhaps friends at work, or school, during a lunch break. One is a Christian (Eager ‘Evangelist’) looking for an opportunity to share Jesus. The other guy is a known nonbeliever (Lost Soul) who has been going through some tough ‘stuff of life’ – marriage in trouble or girlfriend dumped him, having problems paying bills, maybe he even was on the wrong end of an IRS audit, whatever. The list could go on and on. The poor guy is almost in tears and the moment is ripe for our eager ‘evangelist’

Eager ‘Evangelist’: “All you really need is a  personal relationship with Jesus, and everything work out OK!”

Lost Soul: “Really? I just need a personal relationship with Jesus and all my problems in life can be solved? What do you mean?”

Eager ‘Evangelist’: “Just that God loves YOU, and has a really great plan for YOUR life!”

Lost Soul: “He does? Wow!!!!!!! I love ME too!!!!!!” “I had a plan, but man, it’s totally on the skids! Are you telling me God has a better plan for my life?”

Eager ‘Evangelist’: “You’ve got it!!!!! He wants fix ALL the broken stuff, and for you to live abundantly in every area of your life!”

Lost Soul: “Way Kewl!!!! How do I get this relationship?”

Eager ‘Evangelist’: “Just repeat after me. . .”

Lost Soul: . . .repeating with sincerity the little prayer. . .

Eager ‘Evangelist’: “Congratulations! You’re SAVED!”

Well, I could have reversed the roles there, because that’s a been there done that moment. Is there truth in that? Yes, but not the whole truth of the matter. Something has been left out. I used to leave it out, and it’s left out of countless ‘gospel’ presentations every day. I might have even used the rest of the popular ‘evangelistic tool’, but the central focus was on point #1, paraphrased in the above title.

Perhaps the tool isn’t used as much these days, but the central focus of most evangelism these days is the personal relationship with Jesus that is lacking in everyone outside of Christ. While it’s true that a saving personal relationship  with Jesus is lacking, is it true that everyone outside of Christ has no personal relationship, as we so readily communicate in our witnessing?

Would Jesus agree with that assessment – that those who have not believed in Him have no relationship with Him? Let’s see.

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – John 3:18

We love to share a verse a couple of verses before this one, as well as those after, but how we love to omit this one in our presentations! If we know that Jesus is the judge, and I hope we all do, since that’s what the Bible tells us, everyone outside of Christ because of unbelief (everybody who does not believe), has a very personal relationship with Jesus

So much for Jesus’ opinion of personal relationships, what did the great Apostle Paul have to say of the matter?

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience– among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” – Eph 2:1-3 (Emphasis mine)

If you missed what Paul told the Ephesian Christians, he told them that before they were the recipients of God’s saving grace through faith in Christ, they were by nature objects of God’s wrath, like the rest of mankind. I don’t think it can be any clearer than that, my friend.

To this old guy, it seems evident that every everyone, absolutely every person of the planet, lives within the framework of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ – we either live under ‘wrath’ or under ‘grace’.

Think about it and evaluate your ‘evangelism’. I’ve had to evaluate mine.

"Evangelical" Absurdity?

Posted by Dan C. on

Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post recently wrote an article reacting to Franklin Graham stand for the exclusivity of Christ in the matter of salvation. You can read her article here, if you like.

This post is not specifically about the Franklin Graham and his being disinvited from the White House Observance of the National Day of Prayer. It concerns some statistics mentioned in Kathleen Parker’s article.

Concerning the opinions of Protestant pastors and Islam, mentioned a poll conducted by an evangelical polling firm:

A survey of 1,000 Protestant pastors found that 47 percent agree that Islam is “a very evil and a very wicked religion.” But such opinions may be confined mostly to an older generation. Evangelicals under 30 believe that there are many ways to God, not just through Jesus.

She also cited research by David Campbell of Notre Dame and Robert Putman of Harvard that indicated:

“nearly two-thirds of evangelicals under 35 believe non-Christians can go to heaven, vs. 39 percent of those over 65.”

The main thrust of Ms. Parker’s article seems to be that the last bastion of the exclusivity of Christ in Salvation, evangelical Christians as opposed to those who are more liberal and universalistic concerning salvation, is crumbling. As younger evangelicals drift farther and farther away from the exclusive claims of Christ, while the older generations that believe Jesus meant what he said in John 14:6, are dying off, the “all roads lead to God” mantra will get louder and louder within the church!

Having said that, and setting aside the troubling statistics themselves, the overarching question seems to be, “Why?” Why, when scripture is clear on the matter of Christ being the only way to God, are younger “evangelicals” rejecting the clarity of the very words of Jesus in John 3, not to mention the OT prophets and NT apostles?

There are probably several answers to the question, and I will not render an opinion. Feel free to discuss it. But think about it and consider the implications for what calls itself the “church”, as well as what it says about those who call themselves “evangelical”.

If your own ‘opinion’ tends to universalism, examine scripture on the matter. If you are in fact a genuine believer and truly “evangelical”, the Holy Spirit will set you straight.

He is Risen!

Posted by Dan C. on

Perhaps the greatest testimony of the importance of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is found in the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian church:

“And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” – 1 Cor 15:14-20

Paul provides six disastrous consequences if there had been no bodily resurrection:

1) preaching Christ would be senseless (v. 14);

2) faith in Christ would be useless (v. 14);

3) all the witnesses and preachers of the resurrection would be liars (v. 15);

4) no one would be redeemed from sin (v. 17);

5) all former believers would have perished (v.18); and

6) Christians would be the most pitiable people on the earth (v. 19).

But Christ has risen from the dead and “has become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep” (v. 20), assuring that we will follow Him in resurrection.

What was in the Cup?

Posted by Dan C. on

The night he was betrayed and arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus went to a quiet place to pray:

“And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and knelt down and prayed, saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” – Luke 22:41-42

Jesus’ prayer was also recorded in Matthew and Mark:

“Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” – Mat 26:42

“And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. “And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”” – Mar 14:35-36

In the gospel of John, again in the Garden, Jesus again mentions the cup, after Peter cut off the ear of one of the soldiers:

“So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” – John 18:11

I am quite sure Jesus knew what was contained in the cup, but do we? Was it the series of trials and beatings to come? Was it his death on the Cross? Or was more than that?

That is the question left to you this Thursday morning, 2010. What was in the cup?