Category Archives: Salvation

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.

"They Come Most Freely"

Posted by Dan C. on

The Westminster Confession reads:

“I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.”  (Chapter X, Effectual Calling)

If we remove the ‘how’ of effectual calling described above, we are left with this:

“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, . . .come most freely, being made willing by His grace.”

Therein lies the conundrum for the human brain. How is it possible for someone to have been predestined to come to Christ and completely willing at the same time? If men are ‘made’ willing, how can it be truly ‘willing’? We, in the magnificence of our human wisdom, loudly proclaim that for human will to be truly free, even in choosing Christ, must not be influenced by anything outside of ourselves!

Some of us choose Christ, and gain eternal life, while some of us reject Christ, and gain eternal torment. This is done because we have been presented the options and, all on our own, come to the proper decision. Our ‘free will’ is intact and we have a home in Heaven for eternity. We have also removed the conundrum from our thoughts. It’s a win/win situation!

So I will offer a lightly different conundrum. Assuming that choosing Heaven over Hell is in fact the best possible decision that we could make, and assuming that we made the decision  all on our own, do we not have the right to boast a bit about our ‘wise’ decision? Whether or not we do in fact boast about it, cannot we also justifiably be very proud?

The conundrum:

What do the ‘yes’ answers to the rhetorical questions presented above mean in light of Ephesians 2:8-9??

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

Food for thought. . .

I have chosen you out of the world. – Charles Spurgeon

Posted by Dan C. on

“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” – John 15:19 (KJV)

“Here is distinguishing grace and discriminating regard; for some are made the special objects of divine affection. Do not be afraid to dwell upon this high doctrine of election. When your mind is most heavy and depressed, you will find it to be a bottle of richest cordial. Those who doubt the doctrines of grace, or who cast them into the shade, miss the richest clusters of Eshcol; they lose the wines on the lees well refined, the fat things full of marrow. There is no balm in Gilead comparable to it. If the honey in Jonathan’s wood when but touched enlightened the eyes, this is honey which will enlighten your heart to love and learn the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Eat, and fear not a surfeit; live upon this choice dainty, and fear not that it will be too delicate a diet. Meat from the King’s table will hurt none of His courtiers. Desire to have your mind enlarged, that you may comprehend more and more the eternal, everlasting, discriminating love of God. When you have mounted as high as election, tarry on its sister mount, the covenant of grace. Covenant engagements are the munitions of stupendous rock behind which we lie entrenched; covenant engagements with the surety, Christ Jesus, are the quiet resting-places of trembling spirits.

“His oath, His covenant, His blood,

Support me in the raging flood;

When every earthly prop gives way,

This still is all my strength and stay.”

If Jesus undertook to bring me to glory, and if the Father promised that He would give me to the Son to be a part of the infinite reward of the travail of His soul; then, my soul, till God Himself shall be unfaithful, till Jesus shall cease to be the truth, thou art safe. When David danced before the ark, he told Michal that election made him do so (2 Sam 6:21). Come, my soul, exult before the God of grace and leap for joy of heart.”

Wisdom from J.I. Packer

Posted by Dan C. on

“All devices for exerting psychological pressure in order to precipitate ‘decisions’ must be eschewed, as being in truth presumptuous attempts to intrude into the province of the Holy Ghost. Such pressures may even be harmful for while they may produce the outward form of ‘decision,’ they cannot bring about regeneration and a change of heart, and when the ‘decisions’ wear off those who registered them will be found ‘gospel-hardened’ and antagonistic.” -A Quest for Godliness, JI Packer

Found that at a friend’s blog and had to share 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?

Unless a Man Is Born Again

Posted by Dan C. on

Unless a man is born again. . . what? What exactly does a man need to be born again for? What is it that is impossible for a man do do, unless he is born again (regenerated)? John, Chapter 3, in Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, has some answers for us.

“This man (Nicodemus) came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him (Nicodemus), “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” “- John  3:2-3

The first thing we notice in these two verses is that Nicodemus, in reference to Jusus’ miraculous signs, recognized that God was with Him. The Jewish religious leaders all knew that. The second thing we notice is that Jesus didn’t confirm that Nicodemus’ statement was true, but he took the conversation to a new level – the subject of needing to be ‘born again’ (regenerated). That must have been a novel concept to someone who, like other religious leaders of the time, believed that pleasing God, and thus salvation, was dependent on keeping the Law (the original Big Ten and many more).

Let’s take a closer look at several important words/terms in verse 3 in relation to the kingdom of God.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” “- John  3:3

Unless (if not, that is, unless) one is born (From a variation of to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate) again(from above; by analogy from the first; by implication anew) he cannot ( to be able or possible: – be able, can [do, + -not]) see(properly to see (literally or figuratively); by implication (in the perfect only) to know: – be aware, behold, (+ not tell)X consider, (have) known (-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wist, wot. ) the kingdom of God.

Jesus further emphasized the ‘born again’ (regeneration) principle a couple of verses later:

“Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” ” – John 3:5-6

One ‘birth’ is completely of the flesh, and other ‘birth’ is completely from above. This can be problematic if one thinks that the spiritual rebirth is initiated by man’s decision. If you are reading this and it isn’t problematic or you, consider what Jesus said two chapters earlier in the book of John:

“But to all who did receive him (the Word make flesh, Jesus), who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” – John 1:12-13

It would appear from the text that no human action initiates our being born again (regenerated), neither a purely physical act, nor mental act of human decision.

When most of us believe that our rebirth in Christ happens after we make a strictly human decision to accept the gift of salvation, freely offered, this is definitely cause for a thoughtful pause, is it not? Could it be true that unless we have experienced a supernatural act of regeneration by God that we cannot even see, know, consider, or understand the gospel message?

What is the text of a few passages in John tell us, and what does it do to our doctrine of ‘how’ God saves men?

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.

Saving Grace – Resistible or Irresistible?

Posted by Dan C. on

There are only two groups of people on the earth, those who have been regenerated – born of the Spirit of God, and those who are still in bondage to their sin – the natural state of every person born.

Those remaining in bondage to their sin ‘naturally’ resist God’s grace, if they are indeed children of wrath, as Paul tells us in Ephesians. Those who have been regenerated – brought to spiritual life, might also resist the gospel message and call of God drawing them to the Cross of Calvary. However, they will not remain resistant if God has issued His call. The very purpose of the call of God is to bring a lost soul to the Cross and eternally save a man, and the purpose of God cannot be thwarted.

What does that mean in terms of the resistibility of God’s grace?  Simply this – that the power of the grace of God can and will overcome the resistance of the one drawn by God to His Son (John 6:44). No one is dragged kicking and screaming to the cross against their will. Those who come, come running; their wills so moved upon by God’s power and love that their former resistance has been totally overcome.

Food for thought – another perspective on a term used in Calvinism.