Skip to main content

The Shack

Image
By

In a recent radio interview, The Shack author, Paul Young, told the interviewer he did not hold to the traditional view of the atonement in that he does not believe Jesus Christ bore the punishment (i.e., penalty) for man's sins when He died on the Cross. Look at a partial transcript here.

He also stated, with regard to this topic: "I don't know if you're aware, but that's a huge debate that's going on in theology right now within the evangelical community." That debate, to which Young refers, is the new theology (or as we call it the new spirituality) that is entering Christianity through contemplative and emerging figures such as Brennan Manning, Brian McLaren, and Marcus Borg.

This "huge debate" states that a loving Father would never send His Son to a violent death on behalf of the sins of others. And while they do not deny that Jesus did physically die on a Cross, they insist that His death was not to be a substitutionary act wherein He was punished for our sins. Rather, they say, He was killed by man, not for man. And he was a perfect model of sacrificial servanthood. As Episcopal new spirituality author, Alan Jones, states, "Jesus' sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Penal substitution was the name of this vile doctrine" (Reimagining Christianity, p. 168).

We need, as Christians, to be aware of what is true doctrine and what is not; especially where it belittles the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
I love the Shack. It pains me to read the negative reviews -- some are actually outright lying about the contents. I wrote a review on my blog. Youngs words are twisted.

There is a new book out "Finding God in The Shack" in response to the negative reviews. You can read 1st chap free http://budurl.com/Shack3tica
21 March 2009 at 13:28
Anonymous said…
Thanks Robert. I think you may have missed the central issue in this post. We are not directly questioning the book but the words of the author. The question asked, "Is the God you find in 'The Shack' the God of the Scriptures?" is different to the one you answered.

It is not the words of the book we are quoting or indeed misquoting but the actual words of the author which clearly show he does not believe a central tenet of Scripture.

Which God therefore do we find in the Shack?
23 March 2009 at 06:35
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

By
The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...
70 comments
Read more

The Dangers of Adding to the Bible: Guest Post by Jacob Lambert

By
T oday, when we come across Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons we find that they are led by a group of people who hold unquestioned authority. Members of this group know this, some even believe it themselves. This puts them in a powerful position, even to the point where they can create their own Bible. Two examples are the J oseph S mith Translation of the Mormons and the N ew W orld T ranslation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. T hey can add words into their own Bible, words that are not in other, respectable, translations. F or example, in the Greek, C olossians 1:1 6 say s that J esus created all things: ‘ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.’ Col.1:15,16, ESV Jehovah’s Witnesses say that this runs counter to their understanding that Jesus is God’s first creat...
Post a Comment
Read more

Cheers!

By
  In their latest update #4, the Jehovah’s Witnesses' Governing Body has announced that toasting and ‘ clinking glasses’  is now allowed at the individual Jehovah’s Witness’s ‘ bible trained conscience’ .  This, Governing Body member Stephen Lett tells us, is due to ‘ prayerful consideration’  by the Governing Body.  This doesn’t sound unreasonable; who could possibly object to toasting, it’s such an innocuous custom?  The answer to that is the Governing Body itself, until now. Ever since 1952, and possibly earlier, the Watchtower has roundly condemned this practice due to its ‘ pagan roots’  in ‘ false religion’ .  The 15 May 1952 Watchtower (page 319), has this to say on the matter Jehovah God and Christ Jesus are not honored by having pagan customs of toasting switched to them, or to human s In 1968, in an answer to  Questions from Readers,  the 1 Jan Watchtower states If a Christian is going to make a request f...
Post a Comment
Read more