Christ's Most Sacred Moment, Dismissed in "The Shack"
by Ted Slater on 07/08/2008 at 3:47 PM
Where we see the fearsome love of God most clearly is on the cross of Christ.
And the moment during the crucifixion that leaves us most dumbstruck is when Christ screamed the scream of the damned: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
The full consequence of sin, the full furious wrath of the Father, was emptied upon Jesus the Son, and He experienced utter damnation. The hopelessness of eternal, abysmal separation from the Father. With no reprieve, no further appeals, no second chances. Jesus became sin, and was indeed forsaken.
At that most precious moment in all of human history, Jesus screamed the scream of the damned ... for us.
And yet, puzzlingly, The Shack dismisses this sacred moment. In his review of this book, Tim Challies quotes Papa (who represents the Father) as saying, "Regardless of what [Jesus] felt at that moment, I never left him." Tim unpacks what such a heretical statement conveys:
He is not a God who could have poured out upon His Son His just wrath for sin. In fact, God does not need to punish sin at all, says Papa. "I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it."
Well, no. While the Lord does offer forgiveness and healing, the full truth is that God indeed actively punishes sin: When the unsaved are judged, for example, they will not wander into hell. No, God will forcefully and intentionally "throw" them there.
By dismissing Christ's cry of the damned, by saying that He wasn't really forsaken by the Father, we are denying the real and colossal significance of our sins, and therefore denying the costly sacrifice necessary to save us from them. By dismissing Jesus' most precious moment on the cross, we fail to realize that we've been forgiven much. And we consequently don't love God much.
I am so grateful that I will never scream the terrible scream of the damned. I am grateful that the Sinless One took that upon Himself so that I needn't.
1. Jacob said the following at 4:22 PM on Jul 8
Good thoughts, Ted. Too many of us seem to put God in a box and only want to see God as a "loving God" and shy away from the very real truth that God is going a good thing by punishing sinners. When we forget that God's holiness demands of us nothing less that His own holiness, we make a false God in our own likeness.
2. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:20 PM on Jul 8
That is one of my pet-peeve issues with many theological liberals: at the heart of their talk of "inclusion" and "open-mindedness" is also a denial of the Atonement: that Jesus literally died for our sins.
In their world, Jesus died to set a good example of self-sacrifice and submission. Their model is one of a "suffering God" who is really impotent but is identifying with our suffering.
In reality, the Jesus they present is little more than Che Guevara or Barney the Dinosaur on a cross.
While Jesus certainly did identify with our suffering--Isaiah 53:4 says Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows--it cannot be dismissed that He also died for our sins.
This is also reflected in Isaiah 53:
3. George said the following at 6:29 PM on Jul 8
After reading the book's review by Tim Challies, I have no idea how any born-again Christian can support the book nor recommend it to believers and non-believers alike.
It's a huge shame that there's Christian singers, churches, pastors, Sunday school teachers and people who call themselves Christians supporting this heretical book when it is blatantly full of New Age ideas.
I guess there's always people who are more willing to read materials which will satisfy their "itching ears" rather than read God's truth.
4. Cassie said the following at 7:30 PM on Jul 8
Okay, okay. Isn't there other stuff that you guys can be writing on rather than The Shack. I really enjoy reading Boundless, but you guys seriously just won't give it up. It's not like it's gay marriage--it's a stinkin' book. If people read it they're not going to Hell.
5. Josh said the following at 7:39 PM on Jul 8
While I haven't read and would not want to be associated with the Shack, I think many Christians have pushed Jesus' quotation of Psalm 22 far too much in describing it as things like "The Father turned his back on Jesus" or "the Trinity was separated for that moment in history." Never does the text say such, and the original intention of the quotation is perhaps missed. This is not to say that God's wrath wasn't poured out on sin upon the Cross, that Jesus did not "become sin" for us, etc. I think a scriptural view must say that God poured out his wrath on Jesus as our substitutionary sacrifice, but also that the relationship between Father and Son still existed at that moment. To deny one is to deny the Atonement, and to deny the other is to deny the Trinity itself, perhaps.
For example, how do you reconcile the prayer of Jesus before his death, "Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke 23:46) with the complete separation viewpoint? This was clearly said after "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (This saying is not in Luke's account, but the jeering from the crowd that accompanies it in Matthew and Mark still occurs far earlier in Luke.) Why and how does he address the Father if the Father is completely absent? (Not to mention his earlier prayer, "Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do.") There certainly seems to be more going on here than "Jesus and the Father were completely separated at this time."
The Psalm 22 quote is also not used in its proper context in the complete abandonment viewpoint. The text, especially in Matthew's passion account, uses Psalm 22 as a battleground between the enemies of Jesus and Jesus himself. It places the words of the Psalmist's enemies on the mouth of the religious leaders, "He trusts in God, let God deliver him." (Psalm 22:8) Jesus then quotes back the opening stanza of Psalm 22, taking the role of the Psalmist. Where most fail to follow the flow is where the Psalm itself leads, namely that the Psalmist is not forsaken. V. 24 boldly states, "For he did not despise or detest the suffering of the oppressed;
he did not ignore him;
when he cried out to him, he responded."
Obviously, the Resurrection showed that God the Father had not forsaken his Son. But in Mark especially, the way Jesus dies on the cross, with a shout, in power, the graves opened, veil torn, also show God's answer to Jesus' question "Why". He was not forsaken. (As such, the Roman Centurion was compelled to acknowledge some sort of divinity in Jesus."
So then, what are we to make of Jesus' cry? The very nature of the prayer itself is a reminder that total abandonment has not taken place. You don't call out to God if you believe He has totally abandoned you. The suffering of the cross and darkness of the hour certainly produced real feelings of being forsaken, even in Jesus. Yet, his quotation of Psalm 22 cannot be given in isolation of its original context. It is not "the cry of the damned." It is the cry of a righteous sufferer in covenant relationship with God, and in Jesus' case, he knows that He has not been ultimately abandoned by His Father. He continues to talk to Him on the cross!
In conclusion, the Shack attempts perhaps, in this excerpt, to notice something important that perhaps has been missed in the Passion narratives (that the Father wasn't completely detached from Jesus at the Crucifixion scene), but I would wholeheartedly agree with Ted that to go so far as to deny God's wrath upon sin borne by Jesus on the cross is serious error. We, however, should not push this aspect of the cross so far the other way as to say something the text does not say, "God totally abandoned Jesus" or "the Trinity was separated."
I eagerly await others' thoughts on this, including Ted's. I have enjoyed many of your writings on Boundless.
6. Courtney said the following at 7:44 PM on Jul 8
Amen, Amen, and Amen!
The problem with lines like what The Shack presents is that they "sound good"...which is what the world wants to hear and believe. But, in actuality it is the farthest from the truth presented in the Bible or the Goodness of the God of the Bible. Our culture can't imagine or understand a God who condemns. Yet it is in the condemnation that we find the justice and goodness of God (at least it's a huge part of the puzzle of who God is).
7. BDB said the following at 8:06 PM on Jul 8
Gosh, I'm going to have to move this book up on my reading list so I know how to respond...the posts just keep coming...
8. BDB said the following at 8:09 PM on Jul 8
But first I'm going to finish George MacDonald's Phantastes: A Faerie Romance. The book is 100 years old, and inspired C.S. Lewis among others. It's definitely fiction. But written by a Christian.
I'm assuming the book is OK, since MacDonald is mentioned along with the butchers and bakers...
9. Josh said the following at 9:12 PM on Jul 8
"God needs to punish sin" is hardly an uncontroversial statement. It just happens to be necessary to the penal substitutionary view of the Atonement, which by turn is fairly central to the particular Reformed Calvinist theology. I don't see any reason to presume that a rejection of penal substitutionary atonement is so dire a position to take, unless you happen to operate under the belief that anything other than proper Reformed theology is heretical.
10. Brandon said the following at 9:16 PM on Jul 8
Interesting how God's holiness demands eternal punishment as opposed to ceasing to exist when the unsaved die.
11. Chin Wee said the following at 10:50 PM on Jul 8
@ #4 Cassie
The fact of the matter is, Cassie, that there is a very real possibility that people *might* be going to Hell after reading this book if they embrace what is thought in the book.
Note: I'd say "possibility", I don't know for certain. But, let's not continue to let the body of Christ be deceived by books like this.
12. Ted Slater said the following at 10:53 PM on Jul 8
Brandon -- yes, it is horrible, unthinkable, dismaying, unfathomable, terrifying. The difficult thing is that it's also biblical.
May we be found in Him.
13. Ted Slater said the following at 11:04 PM on Jul 8
Josh, I appreciate your thoughtful concerns. If you have an hour and a half, please read this (and the comments) and then listen to this and then this.
I too am bewildered that the Sinless One literally "became sin" ... for me. That thought alone could consume me for decades.
If those sermons literally changed Randy Alcorn's life, they may change yours. They did mine when I heard them a couple of weeks ago at the Resolved conference. I'm about to listen to them again ... and I've got work in the morning....
14. DannieA said the following at 11:34 PM on Jul 8
Brandon...how do you figure?
being exterminated and banished from the presence of God forever IS an eternal punishment.
15. Josh C said the following at 5:46 AM on Jul 9
Josh (From number 5, NOT 9...apparently more than one person has this name.)
Ted,
I had actually read that letter from Randy Alcorn before I had even read your post. I understand why this is such a powerful message, and I agree with the sentiment behind it. (I'm currently doing a sermon on Job and I'm connecting Job's suffering and the asking of "Why" precisely with Jesus' words on the cross and the forsaken element.) I love the "Great Exchange" as Luther called it, "He who knew no sin became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." The Great Exchange, after all, is what changes our lives (not just a great message, although I highly respect John Piper and am just getting acquainted with C.J. Mahaney).
However, in light of great Reformed theology stands the amazing doctrine of Sola Scriptura, scripture as our highest authority. Which means that even if the message sounds really good, even if the Spirit uses the truth in it to change lives, that we are not bound to our traditions and can disagree with our heroes when we feel that they may be missing something.
In light of that, I'm still wondering how this completely accounts for all of Christ's statements in the Passion accounts, or for that matter, how one operates the Passion narrative in a Trinitarian fashion (after all, we've yet to mention where the Holy Spirit was during the Cross.)
This is probably a side topic from "the Shack" and its apparently multiplicity of error. So if you want to write a great Boundless article sometime looking at the Passion account with these exegetical and theological issues in mind, I'd look forward to reading it!
16. Christina (in green) said the following at 6:13 AM on Jul 9
Cassie, you said:
I really enjoy reading Boundless, but you guys seriously just won't give it up. It's not like it's gay marriage--it's a stinkin' book. If people read it they're not going to Hell.
Your right, you don't go to hell for reading a book.
But the thing that you don't seem to get is that books (and other media) have an affect on how we think. Doesn't matter how strong you are in your faith, if you surround yourself with - and dismiss as inconsequential - wrongful, disgusting, heretical, dangerous things, you will get hurt.
Philippians 4:8 speaks to this with utmost clarity. Its why we are encouraged to only surround ourselves with whatever is good, pure, true, lovely.
The people that read and watch these things to provide others with reviews surround themselves with the armor of God, guarding their hearts and minds from the falsehoods, the bad, the impurity, and the ugly that they encounter.
Don't kid yourself. If you are going to read this stuff, you need to remain guarded and on the defensive. It has an effect. Maybe not immediately, but definitly if you continue to embrace it without any thought of what you are embracing.
17. Dr. Ransom said the following at 8:53 AM on Jul 9
Thanks so much for the Resolved links, Ted, and the encouragement to listen. For a while I have been meaning to hear Randy Alcorn's own messages about Heaven -- I'm quite the fan of his 2004 tome on the topic -- yet now I'm sure I need to hear all of the messages from that conference, particularly the ones you've recommended.
Perhaps I can see your point, Cassie, and to that I would add that really, one book shouldn't be getting all this attention. However, it's clear that this little book has attained most-favored status among many people, among them professing Christians.
And the fact also remains (as shown in Tim Challies' review and in Tom Neven's posts) that the book presents a different gospel, which is dangerous and must be rebuked, lovingly yet firmly.
As Chin Wee (comment no. 11) said, the fact is that people will be going to Hell -- not because of reading this book as might be stereotypically perceived, because people go to Hell somewhat "automatically" without the Lord's intervention with His Grace, but because the book does nothing to encourage people to repent and trust in the true Jesus.
Absolutely -- and the Apostle Paul has some very "unloving"-sounding words on the topic, yet spoken with concern for those deceived, yet outrage against the deceivers:
The same apostle later makes a strong case for contending for what we know from Scripture -- and from that we can infer, in certain cultures and when dealing with certain false worldviews, that may require no little amount of "harping" on the same subject:
18. Lise said the following at 9:32 AM on Jul 9
Hi, Josh!
I hope you're still checking this thread; I was wondering whether anyone could post any Bible passages that actually say that God poured out His wrath upon Jesus.
Thanks,
Lise
19. Nancy said the following at 11:45 AM on Jul 9
I think that once we've been following Christ for a while (and no longer engage in our most obvious sins), it's easy to begin thinking, "I'm not so bad." I hope it's always a shock to contemplate the weight our our sins being carried by the sinless, perfect Christ.
As my pastor says, "If sin isn't that bad, then God isn't that good, and Jesus wouldn't have had to die."
20. Nick said the following at 11:49 AM on Jul 9
Ted,
Wow.
Thank you for posting #13.
That should be it's own line post.
Found myself almost moved to tears while reading the email and the following discussion. Meditating on the atonement does increase our affections for God.
21. Brent said the following at 12:21 PM on Jul 9
For all of you who say, "It is just a book." I would suggest you read The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. It is interesting how attacks modernism. Not by lining out the progress of modernism, or its teachers, etc. He starts out by making a note of a small comment that was in a children’s book he was review (i.e. the infamous Green Book).
The problem being that people can not think to save their lives, and are often unaware of the consequences of a statement, and the presuppositions it requires.
In our cultural climate indirect communication is the name of the game and is the most dangerous. I would suggest you download Peter Kreeft's lecture on Lost in the Cosmos for more information...
22. Nicole said the following at 1:28 PM on Jul 9
Wow. I wish people would get this fired up over REAL problems in the world.
23. Ted Slater said the following at 2:07 PM on Jul 9
Those of you who are dismissing our concerns about this book, take a look at this review on Amazon. Here's an excerpt:
I was giving copies of this book out left and right, and most everyone responded to it the same way I did--with much enthusiasm. This book answers masterfully the question of suffering. It is also a fresh breeze for Christians who've been burned by religion, or simply want to be drawn into a deeper walk with God. For those reasons I will continue to give out copies of The Shack to those I think will respond as most people seem to.
However, I've discovered first hand that while the The Shack can be an instrument of salvation to one person, it can be an instrument of destruction for another. I gave it to a friend of mine who is a deeply spiritual New Ager, as well as extremely intellectual. I knew this was probably the only Christian book he could stomach, and I felt he'd actually like it. I was more than right. He LOVED it. He re-read it, taking notes. I had to wait several days before meeting with him to discuss the book, and during that time a haunting question plagued me: Did my friend love this book because it brought him closer to the Truth? Or because it only reinforced his belief that all paths lead to "The Divine?"
In the course of our conversation, my worst fears were realized. I point blank asked my friend, "So do you think the author's intent was to adhere to the fundamental Christian belief that Jesus is the only way to the one true God?" Without hesitation, he said, "Oh no, I didn't see that at all."
People will continue to defend The Shack as THE BOOK to give to unsaved loved ones, but if my friend remains eternally lost, all the 5 stars combined will not matter. To put this book into the hands of someone wanting to read in to it what they want to (and Young makes that very easy, as is evidenced by some of the replies to this post) is a little bit too much like giving a three year old a piece of hard candy. I can't just cross my fingers and hope it goes down safely.
The spiritual state of those reading this book is indeed worth getting fired up about. In my opinion.
24. michelle said the following at 5:28 PM on Jul 9
Lets not throw the baby out with the bath just yet, please.
I just finished reading 'The Shack'. I loved the book, and did not focus on much of the flaws in its theology, but instead I focused on the story of healing of a broken heart, and the love of the Father. I came away with a renewed desire to live life with a heart of expectancy for what God is doing, rather than creating expectations about what I desire Him to do. That was a huge revelation for me. I did not read this book seeking salvation, nor should anyone else. But did I enjoy it thoroughly? Yes indeed! Is it a theological work? Of course not. Would I share it with someone as a way to be saved. No, I would not. But the book has great merit for what it is: a good read that leaves the reader encouraged. After just having lost my 2 yr old grandson in a senseless accident a few weeks ago, reading 'The Shack' was particularly comforting and a huge blessing to me.
25. Brandon said the following at 11:24 PM on Jul 9
Ted, you can add one more word to your list in #12: immoral.
DannieA #14: If what you say is true, then we were all being punished before we existed. That's about 13-14 billion years of torture that I have no recollection of.
26. Tom Neven said the following at 8:49 AM on Jul 10
Brandon (#25)
Immoral as compared to what? What standard do you judge against?
Also, the second half of your comment contains several errors: the first is that you will cease to exist after death as you didn't exist before you were conceived. You don't know that. Also, Scripture never uses the word "torture." It says "torment"; not the same thing.
27. Nick said the following at 9:01 AM on Jul 10
@Brandon (#25) the doctrine of Hell is all throughout the Bible. You can read what God says about hell in the Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus.
Rev. 20:11-15 is even more clear about the dead being cast into the lake of eternal fire.
As you can see from the passage in Revelation, those who do not embrace God's way for the forgiveness of sins in life will be punished eternally WHEN they die.
Not before. You see, unlike God, we were created. That's why you don't remember anything from before you were born - you didn't exist yet!
And as you can see from that passage, judgment takes place after death (or the second coming, whatever comes first).
These are not my opinions, they are Biblical truths.
28. Adri-Anne said the following at 10:39 AM on Jul 10
I agree with Michelle (#24). Myself and many other mature and grounded Christians I know have read it, and while the writing isn't great, and I feel that it left out some important characteristics of God, I think it's important to take this book for what it is. It's a story choosing to feature the loving, healing, redemptive aspect of God. With regards to it's comments about seminary, who knows, maybe this man has written about personal or related experiences. If he or someone close to him has had these experiences with seminary, how can you say "no, because seminary isn't supposed to be like this, your experiences aren't valid." With regards to what he says about the Church, I'm sorry, but who hasn't had experiences with the church that are far, far from what the Bride of Christ is supposed to be and represent? Especially the church in the western world. Re: the Bible, I think you're reading too much into it. What I took from it was that the Bible isn't GOD himself, the Bible is God's word, meant to be read, but that our relationship with God Himself is more important. Anyways, to quote Michelle, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many people feel closer to God and are driven to scripture because of this book.
29. Steve Christopher said the following at 2:07 PM on Jul 10
Just as our God in the Old Testament was misunderstood by the experts who lived in Christ's time, so is our God in both testaments misunderstood today. The pages of Scripture were never meant to confine Him, as they are often used today (and perhaps then). They were meant to reveal His Son, which was told to us by His Son, and they are only truly understood in light of that truth, not when used as proof-text weapons to uphold traditions or worse. If the Lord can use me, then He can certainly use this book, whatever shortcomings it may have, to reach out to folks. I am the worst of all sinners.
Furthermore...our lives are a "pillar and support of the truth", not the reverse. We prop all sorts of things about ourselves up with His Word - justifying it all. We even abuse those who are encouraged toward Christ by something flawed. All the while we find ourselves justified by statements Paul has made to churches or what have you. What are we so afraid of - the Christ they might be encouraged toward? I think He can handle it. I'm reminded of how He did not want the children hindered from coming to Him. He was unconcerned with their limited or even incorrect understanding. As a child I had so many wrong pictures of God, yet I came, and He was faithful to meet me in all of my poor understanding.
How sad this and the other blogs concerning this book have become. A brother was trying to simply bless His family, and God had other ideas.
"But if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God."
30. Steve Christopher said the following at 3:45 PM on Jul 10
A response to Dr. Ransom on Rich's scenario (originally posted on FaithFusion.net)
Today I visited the Boundless blog and linked to this site from one of your posts about "The Shack".
Rich's scenario is easily resolved. If you were a first century Christian and only received the first letter from the apostle John, what would your picture of God be? Likewise, what if you only read his revelation? What might your picture of God be then? For that matter, did any apostolic letter written to the early churches before they had all of Scripture paint a complete, and what you call "balanced", picture of God? Just some thoughts for you to consider, brother.
Those first century churches certainly had their problems, but it could hardly be blamed on the apostle Paul for failing to reveal all of God in any single letter. We live by the Spirit, friend, not the letter. The letter kills, and it has taken many on the Boundless blog lately. The epistles had certain focuses just as "The Shack" has a particular focus.
I have read it. I know it's not perfect. But, there is nothing in the Scripture that you uphold that says that God cannot use something imperfect or meet someone through such a thing. One would think that someone who can uphold Christian elements of non-Christian productions like Harry Potter and Star Trek could uphold Christian elements of a Christian production, albeit an imperfect one. However, you cannot uphold such elements because you don't know what they are. Yet, you have discounted them in the lives of many. You play by rules that you have invented, not that God has invented.
31. stew said the following at 4:21 PM on Jul 10
I'm glad the theological police are hard on the case. Can't have books like The Shack floating around now, can we? Oh oh, sounds a little like a 'righteous' group Jesus used to talk about that begins with a "P"...
32. Tom Neven said the following at 4:27 PM on Jul 10
Stew (#31)
Remember, the Pharisees were the ones teaching man-made traditions, not the Word of God.
Rather than name-calling, simply show us how The Shack aligns with God's Word and how our comments don't.
That would be way more helpful.
33. George said the following at 11:04 PM on Jul 10
I remember hearing a preacher said before, "If a man believes in and follows a Christ which men have conjured up in their minds, a Christ who isn't the Biblical Christ, and also a Christ who didn't have to pay the ultimate price on the cross in order that his sins are paid for, since he must not be as bad as God's Word says so in the beginning, is that man saved and truly born-again?"
Yes, I believe that God can use anything to save anyone since He's sovereign to begin with, but He has chosen to use His Gospel, preached by His people to do the work. The Bible is God-inspired, so I strongly believe that the Bible is inerrant, authenticates itself, is its own interpreter, and sufficient by itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
The Bible is the best way anyone can come to know God, His relationship with us and how we are to have a relationship with Him. Shouldn't we get into it more than some fiction written by a mere man?
34. Craig said the following at 11:10 PM on Jul 10
Interesting discussions. So many different points. I will only address a couple.
First, The Shack could contain some statements that appear false for those who want to look at them that way. But, then again, so does the Bible. I mean, a Jewish person could look at Romans and say "hey, I don't have to believe on Jesus because the Bible says 'all Israel will be saved.'"
I have not read The Shack, so I will withhold trying to defend it in any way, other than to say that the excerpts mentioned on here are not that troubling to me. The idea that God the Father poured out His judgment on Jesus at the same time not leaving Him is an acceptable interpretation of the different scriptures.
I do agree that de-emphasizing sin can be problematic if it leads us to feel like we do not need a Savior. But, isn't the whole essence of the gospel about being born again and having life to the fullest. Jesus said he came that we might have life and have it to the fullest.
The gospel is not a means to avoid punishment. In fact, those who emphasize that are more heretical than those who emphasize God's love. Emphasizing avoiding hell as the basis of the gospel cuts the heart out of the new testament which spends much more time talking about how we are to live by the Spirit, not about how Jesus came to keep us out of hell. So, an emphasis on being cured from sin is more in keeping with the gospel than an emphasis on "turn or burn!" In fact, our culture is made up of far too many "Christians" who smugly feel they have escaped judgment, but show no love in their life. Faith, hope, and love... and the GREATEST of these is love.
Also, some have discussed hell briefly. To clarify, the story of Lazarus and the rich man is not about hell, at least not in the context of hell being the final judgment. Go back to Luke and look at the story. They are in hades. In Revelation, it says that death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire. Thus, hades is not the same as the lake of fire.
Moreover, while hell is clearly a biblical concept, what happens there is not clear. Revelation calls the lake of fire the "second death." Malachi 4 says that "neither a root nor a branch will remain" when the evildoers are burned up at the judgment. Moreover, 1 Timothy 6:16 says that God alone is immortal, so we cannot presume that our souls are immortal. In fact, 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 8:11 appear to preclude us being immortal in and of ourselves; Namely, those passgaes say that we are mortal, unless we are in Christ (who is the man from heaven).
Accordingly, it is very biblical to believe that those who are not in Christ are destroyed in the lake of fire and cease to exist. I understand the opposite view (i.e., eternal conscious torment), but the bible has ample passages to support both views. Much like predestination, baptism, spiritual gifts, etc., this is an issue that the bible can be used to support alternate viewpoints.
Ultimately, my biggest concern is that too many Christians start focusing on "knowledge" as the key to salvation. In contrast, Jesus's parable in Matthew 25 about the sheep and the goats focused on actions. Elsewhere, Jesus said "if you love me, you will obey my commands," and "By this all men shall know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another." Let us remember that the gospel is not about how much you know, but by how you live. "By their fruit, you will know them." So, for all of those claiming to have right opinions about theology and scripture, the question is "what are you doing to show love?" Is it simply blogging about what is truth and what isn't? Or, hopefully, are you living a life of love that is drawing people to Christ? Are you baptizing people? Are you feeding the hungry, caring for the orphans and widows, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and caring for the sick? Dear brothers (and sisters), let us not love with words only, but with actions!
Peace and Grace!
35. Steve Christopher said the following at 9:43 AM on Jul 11
Thank you Greg. The Spirit has used your reminder to convict my heart. Thank you.
In driving to work today I was thinking about all of this discussion. Much water has been thrown on sparks lit in hearts by this book. I have read in some posts that the Spirit would not move people using this book because some of it is believed contradictory to Scripture - therefore the Spirit would not work through it.
Now...let's say I have a friend - let's call him Fred. Fred attends a rather large, evangelical church in our town. He goes there on Sundays and has a little interaction with other believers. He sings some praise and worship songs. He empties his pockets into the plate when it's passed. He sits and listens to a sermon that he says blesses his heart. He sings another song and goes home. All of this he refers to as "church". He relates the message to me. There are parts that I don't agree with, but I certainly can't deny the parts that touched him. Likewise, I'm thinking during our conversation that much of his experience, which he refers to as "church", has no root in the Bible whatsoever. Much of what he has just done with other believers and called "church" would have been completely foreign to the early church and is not prescribed in any way, shape, or form in Scripture.
So, tell me critics of "The Shack"...what should my response be to Fred? Am I to pour water on his fire? Am I to tell him sorry, but since so many things about what just happened are not biblical, this little biblical nugget of blessing that you received well...it could not have happened?
Whatever shortcomings that "The Shack" is perceived to have it certainly "aligns" with Scripture in some very specific areas. One of the biggest would have to be that God is a God who wants relationship with people and that He cares deeply about our hurts and pain. He wants us to live in freedom in our relationship with Him. Let me ask, is there anything unbiblical about that aspect of the book, which a careful reading of many posts in favor of the book will tell you was a huge blessing for readers?
This is such nonsense. The Lord must be saddened. Did He not use pagan empires to get the attention of Israel and Judah? Those of you who want to uphold sound doctrine, which I believe would be most everyone here, let's first examine what our brothers and sisters were blessed by before we tell them that they could not have possibly been blessed. Many here were likely saved in churches and have since been blessed in churches that look nothing like a biblical, first century church. Should we discount their salvation? Should we say the Spirit has never moved them? May we perserve the unity of the Spirit. May love prevail.
36. Nick said the following at 10:43 AM on Jul 11
@Craig (#34)
Great response - thanks for the reminder on showing love towards one another!
37. Tom Neven said the following at 10:44 AM on Jul 11
Craig (#34)
You write, "The gospel is not a means to avoid punishment. In fact, those who emphasize that are more heretical than those who emphasize God's love."
Re-read the Gospels. Jesus warns of hell more than He promises heaven. Was He heretical?
And while I agree that focusing on "knowledge" alone does not save anyone, focusing on actions alone is equally wrong, since Scripture makes it quite clear that our works cannot save us. Correct knowledge leads to correct actions.
Steve Christoper (#35)
You confuse several issues and make a false analogy.
Scripture is silent on how to conduct a worship service. So even if a 21st century church service would be foreign to a 1st century believer, there's nothing inherently wrong about that. In other words, from your description there is nothing in Fred's Sunday morning experience that contradicts Scripture. Where Scripture is silent, we are free.
But Scripture is not silent and is quite clear about some things, and among those are God's nature, including his determination to judge sin; the nature of the relationship of the three Persons of the Trinity; the purpose of Christ's death on the cross; and Christ's death being the exclusive means to reconciliation with God.
The Shack gets all those wrong.
For a knowledgeable believer to deliberately give this book to an unbeliever is to knowingly introduce him to false ideas. The original post on this shows clearly where we are instructed, multiple times, to ensure we teach correct doctrine.
The Shack, in short, teaches several false doctrines (or, at best, confused doctrines), and therefore it is our duty to speak up, since this book purports to be about the God of Christianity.
I don't care how warm and fuzzy it makes someone feel; an overdose of heroin will do that, too -- right before it kills you.
38. Lise said the following at 11:03 AM on Jul 11
To Craig:
Wow! What interesting comments you have. It's safe to say that most Boundless readers would probably disagree with many of your ideas. I'm particularly interested in discussing what you said about "the mortal soul" (as opposed to the immortal soul), but I've decided somewhat that a public forum isn't necessarily the right place for an in-depth Biblical exchange, as things can get muddled. If you're interested in talking to someone who finds that viewpoint most intriguing, please e-mail my husband and I at . This is a public e-mail address; don't worry, I'm not giving out any private info. :)
39. Steve Christopher said the following at 11:24 AM on Jul 11
Tom,
I wasn't really talking about how to conduct a worship service. I was talking about what is understood today as a church gathering.
Is Scripture silent on church gatherings? Really? What then does 1 Corithians 14:26 say about when we gather and how often does that happen on Sunday mornings today? When is any modern church office/position or anyone other than Jesus Christ presented as head of His Church in Scripture? Where did the sinner's prayer come from? Perhaps my analogy is valid after all? Again, can people not be blessed at a modern church gathering? Of course they can. I was saved in such a setting. Does it align with Scipture? Not really. Please please. Don't preach sound biblical doctrine and then read you context back into it...
By "God" my assumption is that you mean the Father. The Father will judge sin? Will He? Oh...rest assured...sin will be judged, about that there is no question. But, what did Jesus say on the matter?
"For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgement to the Son."
Is it a great heresy then for "Papa" to imply that He does not judge sin? Has judgement not been given by the Father to the Son?
Really gentlemen...please tell me we are throwing this book out for more than this statement.
I can see that the Titanic will not be turned.
Steve
40. Jo said the following at 11:28 AM on Jul 11
Craig -
Your take on hell is one that I've heard before, and one that I'm very much inclined towards. A long time ago a pastor I know said that while the Bible says that hell will exist eternally, it never says that the people who go to hell will live eternally there. He believed as you do, that it will be a second death and then ceasing to exist, rather than eternal punishment.
I haven't researched the issue though, so if you (or anyone) have any more thoughts... please share!
41. Rachael said the following at 11:56 AM on Jul 11
Wow on hell. Does anyone have any resources that pull up all the verses in the Bible referring to hell?
42. Tom Neven said the following at 12:03 PM on Jul 11
Steve (#39)
The situation you describe in 1 Corinthians 14:26 is the classic hermeneutical error of taking was Scripture describes and making it something it prescribes. Taken in full context, Paul is addressing the chaotic worship services in the Corinthian church, where everyone wanted to speak and be acknowledged. Paul does not say you must have "a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation." He's describing the situation already at hand. He's saying that any of these gifts must be used for God's glory, not the speaker's. He finishes his point in v. 33: "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace."
So aside from prescribing order in church services, Paul is not telling us how to conduct a worship service.
As for the "sinner's prayer," I have no idea where it came from, but my church doesn't use it; indeed, many do not. But please show me where it contradicts Scripture, if that's what you're asserting.
As for your quote from John 5:22 ("Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son"), this proves nothing with regard to The Shack. It shows that the right to judge sin is God the Father's, but he entrusts it to the Son. Now show me where "Papa" says the equivalent in the book. The Jesus of this story does not judge, either. Indeed, Papa downplays judgment completely by saying sin is its own punishment. While this is certainly true in a broad sense, it completely leaves out the final judgment of all sinners, whether by the Father or the Son.
And, no, we're not throwing the book out for just this statement. Papa also says Jesus is the "best" way to God, not the only way, as Jesus clearly says in John 14:6. (The word "best" carries within itself the implication that there are other ways, perhaps not as good, but still valid.)
Again, Steve, the overall message of The Shack contradicts Scripture, and as believers we are commanded to ensure and teach correct doctrine, not to excuse false doctrine just because it leaves some people feeling warm and fuzzy.
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
43. Tom Neven said the following at 12:21 PM on Jul 11
Rachael (#41)
Craig's view is called "annihilationism," and it's built mostly on an argument from silence and conjecture, not actual Scripture.
Jesus says in Matthew 25:46:
You cannot be eternally punished if you cease to exist.
Revelation 14:9-11 says,
You can say this applies only to those who worship the Beast, but why would eternal torment apply only to them and not all sinners, since in a sense all sinners are like those who worship the Beast? They all have rejected God.
Revelation 10:20 says,
Again, torment (which implies consciousness) for eternity. You cannot be tormented if you cease to exist.
For a fuller treatment of this, I recommend this site.
44. Tami said the following at 12:22 PM on Jul 11
Jo (40) and others -- I think the view you're referring to is called "annihilationism." Or at least, that's the closest I've come to a label for that viewpoint. :)
I found an article by J.I. Packer that (as he puts it) "review[s] the debate and assess[es] the strength of the arguments used":
http://www.the-highway.com/annihilationism_Packer.html
Ultimately, Packer does not come down in favor of it, but he's a solid writer, and his discussion is measured, so I think it's worth your time to read.
There are also some very solid Bible teachers that do hold to some version of annihilationism, but as I can only find their positions written anecdotally (and not the original pieces) I'll refrain from stating who they are. But a quick Internet search will find them. And they are mentioned in the Packer article :)
45. Craig said the following at 12:27 PM on Jul 11
Tom (#37): I agree with you that Jesus talks much more about hell than heaven. I was not making that contrast. My point is that Jesus talks even much more (by a HUGE amount) about how we are to live here and now, than either heaven or hell.
So, I think any emphasis of the gospel that focuses more on the afterlife (whether it is heaven or hell) than on how we are to daily live now totally misses the point. Jesus came to rescue us from this body of death. That starts with putting the sinful nature to death and being delivered from bondage to sin. That relates to how we live now. Yes, it also has consequences for eternity, in that the same spirit that redeems us from bondage to sin is also the spirit that gives life to our mortal bodies (i.e., eternal life and escape from the punishment of hell).
No, works do not save us. Only the Holy Spirit living in us saves us. It is that spirit that gives life to our mortal bodies. As it says in Ephesians, He put His spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. So, intellectual assent to right doctrine is also not enough (even the demons believe, and tremble).
Rather, as it says in 1 John, if we say we love God, but do not love our brother, we are a liar. Because we cannot love God, whom we have not seen, if we cannot love our brother, whom we do see. So, to me, the measure of how I love God is shown by how I love my neighbor. Do those works save me? No, but they are the affirmation of my faith, because faith without works is dead. Jesus told us that if we love God and love our neighbor, we have fulfilled the whole law.
So, a gospel that focuses on right "knowledge," rather than practical daily living, is heresy and leads men to a false confidence in their salvation. In contrast, a gospel that recognizes our sinfulness and need for a savior, and then focuses on living a life of following Jesus by actions, and not simply learning more knowledge (which also is important; for those versed in scripture, you have probably already recognized that many of my statements in this post are direct quotes from scripture without the cite), is a much more biblical statement of the gospel.
Again, Peace and Grace!
46. Rachael said the following at 12:28 PM on Jul 11
Re: "Sinner's Prayer"...I realize there's not an exact prayer to follow to receive salvation and that God knows those who He has saved.
How do people evangelize? Do you still encourage some sort of prayer if there is someone who wants to accept salvation? I think it could help affirm things up in the person's mind to help make him/her sure they are saved and that they believe...
I'm curious though about evangelism and where a prayer isn't used how the gospel is shared.
I'm so curious about evangelism in general and I think it could make for a neat article if someone wanted to dig in Scripture and write about a bunch of ways people came to know and embrace Christ/salvation. I think it can come across in different ways...and so I asked my pastor about this at a seminar, and his answer was simple, alluding to the jailer in Acts 16.
But I don't feel that the gospel always get presented that simply...and I'm curious as to what elements are essential for people to know before embracing the faith. But I guess they don't have to know "everything" when they take on the new life, and even if the gospel presentation differs, God can reveal different aspects to the new believer through His Word and through other Christian influences...
But in thinking about gospel presentations, what elements might we prepare to include? I know God is the one who saves and not us, but still I'd like to think about it.
I think there are gospel presentations where there might include elements of works....stuff that God might work in a person AFTER receiving the Holy Spirit upon belief.
Anyway...okay enough boundlessing for awhile...but some deep and interesting thoughts always come up over Boundless/comments! Thank you!
47. Rachael said the following at 12:30 PM on Jul 11
Thanks Tom! I'd always assumed hell was eternal, so thanks for the comment, verses, and link! I'll check out that link...
48. Tom Neven said the following at 12:35 PM on Jul 11
Forgot to add that Craig's use of 1 Timothy 6:16 in saying that God alone is "immortal" misunderstands the Greek word used here. It is aphthartos, which means "uncorrupted, incapable of corruption," not "living forever," although the first leads naturally to the second.
The Greek word meaning "death" is thanatos, which is not the word used in 1 Timothy 6:16.
49. Craig said the following at 12:48 PM on Jul 11
Tom(#43):
I respectfully disagree - my argument is not at all based upon silence in scripture.
There is much more scripture that talks about the "destruction" of the wicked than would indicate their "conscious torment." In fact, you cite the passage that is often used, and it does specifcially limit its application to those who worship the beast. Your application of it to others completely reads into it something that is not clearly stated. Under legal principles of interpretation, when something is specifically identified in a list, anything that is excluded is intended to be excluded.
In a nutshell, here is my argument:
Point 1: Man is inherently mortal. The passages in my earlier post make that clear. Only God is immortal.
Point 2: The bible clearly tells us that Jesus came to give us "life." It continually talks about how we are dead in our sins, and how we have passed over from death to life when we are born again. Jesus gives us "eternal life." That must be related to something beyond this life, because he sure did not give us physical immortality in this life. We still all die. So, he is clearly talking about spiritual life. Why "life?" Because we are spiritually dead. Read 1 Corinthians 15 for a discussion of the bodies we will be raised with.
Point 3: We can be spiritually destroyed. Malachi makes the point that neither a root nor a branch will remain when the day comes like a fire and burns up the evildoer. In Luke, Jesus tells us to not fear the one who can destroy the body (Satan), but fear Him (God) who can destroy both body and soul in hell. In revelation, it says that those whose names are not found written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire, which is the "second death."
Again, why is the term "death" used in Revelation? Physical death is the destruction of the body, where it ceases to function and eventually disappears (over time, as it corrodes). Spritual death would connote the same thing. That the soul is destroyed and dies.
So, to summarize: we are inherently dead spiritually. We are either born again in this life, and given the spirit as a deposit guranteeing that our name will be found in the "book of life" (again, not the "book of rewards," or "book of non-punishment"), or we die and are resurrected for the judgment. If we are resurrected for the judgment and our name is not found in the book of life, we are cast into the lake of fire which is the second death. that is what Jesus was referring to when He said fear Him who can "destroy" both body and soul in hell. Then, like it says in Malachi, neither a root nor a branch will remain after the fire consumes them. Not pleasant, but also not eternally lasting. It is eternal in the sense that it is an irreversible damnation, though.
Most of what I have referenced is amply supported by Scripture and I am not at all relying upon any silence in scripture. In fact, all of the refutations I have seen of these passages I mention would appear to the objective reader to be rather strained efforts to avoid the very clear statement of the passage, just as your effort to include all people in the punishment for those who worship the beast is a strained interpretation that is not clear in the passage.
So, while reasonable minds may differ, do not be mislead into thinking there is not an abundance of scripture to support my view.
50. Craig said the following at 12:57 PM on Jul 11
Tom:
the greek word "Aphthartos" is used once in the New Testament. It is given the meaning:
"uncorrupted, not liable to corruption or decay, imperishable, immortal"
Most bible translators translate it immortal or imperishable for a reason - because they understand that was the intention of the passage. The opposite of imperishable is perishable, i.e., something can perish.
Regardless, 1 Corinthians 15 and other passages make it clear that man is not inherently immortal.
51. Steve Christopher said the following at 12:58 PM on Jul 11
Thanks for your comments Tom. Also, thanks for the final biblical warning. I have never been afraid of sound doctrine or to be challenged in my beliefs. I am a truth seeker to be sure. I like the fear-mongering though. Thanks for that. "Don't oppose my biblical understanding or you must be one of those guys wanting your ears tickled." By the grace of Christ I'll come boldly before the throne in all of my misunderstandings of God, the church, the Bible, and everything else, and yet He loves me. Perfect love casts out fear.
You seem to think that I am arguing for "The Shack". What I'm arguing for is a big God who can bless people through many forms and structures, not that He needs my weak defense, even if they are wrong in some ways and right in others. I believe you have agreed with this very thing in other posts, yet seem to oppose it here. Fascinating! What I am hearing is there is no room for such an argument here because it cannot be separated from "The Shack". Perhaps I have failed to find the right analogy. Perhaps no such analogy exists. Perhaps it doesn't matter what anyone else says to you or critics of the book. That's ok. I am here to glorify Christ, not defend a book.
As far as the value of this book and understanding of church (not worship services) go, I will agree to disagree with you. After all, I'll be living with you forever so we better learn to get along. ;-) I'll be the heretic in the mansion next door. ;-)
Smile Tom. God loves you (but He'll judge you too). Joking!
Steve
52. Craig said the following at 1:01 PM on Jul 11
Quick correction. Aphthartos is used 7 times in scripture. I just wanted to avoid somebody coming back and making that an issue. :-)
53. Steve Christopher said the following at 1:03 PM on Jul 11
"Our Lord must be repeatedly astounded at us - astounded at how un-simple we are. It is opinions of our own which make us stupid, when we are simple we are never stupid, we discern all the time" (Oswald Chambers, "My Utmost For His Highest", 4/21).
54. Lise said the following at 1:15 PM on Jul 11
Okay Craig, let's try that once more: remove the spaces and convert it into the proper format and you'll have an e-mail address my husband and I use for public forum comments.
lesserone "at" gmail dot com
If this looks blank, then it got filtered somehow. :(
If it shows up - great! Please write if you're remotely interested in further discussion. :)
Editor's Note: She has to render the e-mail that way in this post or else evil computer spambots will seize on it and bombard them with offers for untold riches from Nigerian government officials.
55. Tom Neven said the following at 1:18 PM on Jul 11
Craig (#49)
Read the J.I. Packer piece that someone else cited. It's not nearly as even-handed as she said. He comes down pretty clearly against annihilationism and does a pretty good job of, well, annihilating the grammatical arguments for it, as well as the "logical" ones.
And, yes, aparthos does appear 7 times, and in every instance except 1 Timothy, it's translated "incorruptible" or a grammatical variation thereof, so the argument that only God lives forever, with that verse as proof, no longer holds.
56. Tom Neven said the following at 1:22 PM on Jul 11
Steve (#51)
I think we're misunderstanding each other. As I said here, I will not gainsay any individual's experience of reading this book, and I encourage mature believers to read it so they understand what it says. We should not be encouraging it.
But as I have said repeatedly, anyone who knows better who knowingly give this book to an unbeliever is knowingly giving him false information and is disobeying the Scriptural command to guard and teach correct doctrine.
That final Scriptural warning was not aimed at you; it was aimed at the world who eat up such warm and fuzzy teaching about God because it conforms to their worldview, not because it conforms to the truth.
57. Steve Christopher said the following at 1:42 PM on Jul 11
Lise! Love the editor's note! Hilarious!
58. Tami said the following at 1:50 PM on Jul 11
Tom (55) and all... to clarify, I didn't mean that that the Packer article is "even handed" in terms of offering equal discussion of both sides of the issue, but that it is "measured" in terms of Packer's thoughtful consideration of the points posited by those in favor of that viewpoint, and his respectful tone towards those he disagrees with.
Sorry that didn't come across as clearly as I'd hoped.
59. Craig said the following at 1:50 PM on Jul 11
Tom:
Not to sound rude, but I have studied this issue of hell quite exhaustively. I have read the Packer article, well before today. John R.W. Stott has written an excellent counterpoint, as did Clark Pinnock. Both of them have disagreed clearly with Packer. And, while I like Packer generally, I disagree with so much of his reformed theology, that I generally do not see him as authoritative. Unfortunately, I only have the paper copies of the articles by Stott and Pinnock, and not a link, although I am sure I could track one down.
Suffice to say that theologians differ significantly on the issue. The primary problem that I have seen from Packer and others is that they use a circular argument. For example, they will translate a word a certain way and then point to that translation as the basis for their intepretation of another word. Or, they take a disputed meaning from the time, and use that to bootstrap a meaning in a passage that is not clear from the plain language.
I can accept why you choose to accept Packer's view, but I am quite confident in the scriptural defensibility of my view. Once I find a link that has Stott and Pinnock's responses, I will gladly post it.
60. Craig said the following at 2:03 PM on Jul 11
Here is a link to Pinnock's article on it, but I like Stott's better. I will try to find it as well.
61. Tom Neven said the following at 2:06 PM on Jul 11
Craig (#59)
I respect the studies you've done on that. Since I'm of the Reformed persuasion and went to a Reformed seminary, maybe that explains why I'm more partial to Packer.
I'm familiar with John Stott's position and know the paper you talk of. (The only online link to it is now dead.) But a key phrase in it was primarily emotional:
Significantly, from what I've read, Stott has backed away from this position in recent years. Maybe that's why the link is now dead.
I didn't want to go off on a tangent, but I'd put even less stock in Pinnock. He also teaches a form of "inclusivism" that says people can be saved through general revelation about God, even through pagan religions, which is directly contrary to John 14:6.
In summary, I believe annihilationism denies the essential nature of God and of sin. But as you said (I think it was you) earlier, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
62. Craig said the following at 2:24 PM on Jul 11
OK, last comment for a while. No, seriously! :-)
The issue of biblical translation and interpretation is an itneresting one. Essentially what Packer and some others say is that "the translators have gotten it wrong." Namely, the translators have chosen a word that gives the wrong impression.
Isn't the whole point of translation to change from one language into another while communicating the essence of what is being said?
So, let's assume, for example, that I say "My wife one hot chick!" If a translator would translate that by saying "he said that his wife is a warm-temperatured small chicken" that would be a mistranslation. It does not connote my meaning.
So, a translator intends to communicate the meaning of the passage when they translate it. So, when people say that "immortal doesn't realy mean immortal as we understand it," they are saying, the translators didn't accurately translate the meaning. Similarly, if death does not mean death in the way it is accepted in our culture, then the translators need to use other words to communicate that.
But, uniformly, translators of the major texts have chosen these words to communicate the intentions of the passage. However, when people like Packer suddenly realize that the implications of those translations cause problems for their theology, they try to argue that it doesn't mean really what it has been translated as. That is a serious charge, that basically says that the translators have not done their job.
So, if it means something other than those words, the translation needs to be fixed. But, there is no mass movement to change those words (for example, death, destruction, immortality") because most translators agree upon what was intended. It is only theologians who later have a problem with the implications.
I agree that the study of greek is important, because some words can have multiple meanings. So, it is important to look at what specific meaning was intended if there is ambiguity. However, words like immortal or death are pretty unambiguous. At times, they may be used figuratively, but we still understand their meaning.
So, if Packer really thinks the passages connote something different, perhaps he should develop his own translation? :-) As for me, I trust the scholarly work of hundreds of people in putting together translations like the NAS, NIV, RSV, etc.
ntention
63. Tom Neven said the following at 2:47 PM on Jul 11
Craig (#62)
No, I last-worded you last! ;) Having learned to speak passable French, I know well the difficulties of trying to transliterate ideas across languages.
But a principle of biblical translation is that when you encounter a word with uncertain or possibly more than one meaning, you look to other places where the word is used and, based on context, render it one way or another. You also look to see if there are similar words that, based on context, would work better.
In the case of aphthartos, it is in every other instance rendered "incorruptible," it's more literal meaning. I have to admit I'm puzzled why the same translators chose to render it "immortal" in 1 Timothy.
But if you want to say "death," or "not dying," there are a perfectly good Greek words already used, thanatos and athanatos. So clearly the single usage of "immortal" in 1 Timothy based on a word more normally translated "incorruptible" should not supercede all the numerous other uses of thanatos and athanatos to mean a death and not-dying.
Packer did not shoehorn his meaning at all. He went by the plain sense of the entire body of Scripture, not selected verses.
64. Steve Christopher said the following at 3:05 PM on Jul 11
Craig,
Great post. I hope it's not your last.
You raise excellent points on translation. I'm with you. I choose to trust the numbers of folks who are committed to good translating over a well-intentioned theologian who might want his theology to work out a little too much.
I have some questions of my own about interpretation. For example, do we really need an in depth understanding of hermeneutics to understand scripture? Sometimes I feel like I'm listening to Bill Clinton say, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," when I listen to a sermon or see someone's understanding of scripture shot down because they didn't follow proper hermeneutics. I know there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth for bringing this up, but if we are a royal priesthood, if the body is built up by what every joint supplies and by the proper working of each individual part (more church-related passages for you to debunk, Tom) then...could it mean that I don't need a seminary education to add value or to have a proper understanding of scripture? "Well Steve, the handling of the Word of God is for professionals, but you can have a toilet-cleaning ministry." Not to discount someone who cleans toilets at all - my father has been a deacon for years and does just that, but I think God had something more in mind here, and I think the Spirit of God in me makes me a part of the body of Christ that can add value in scriptural understanding regardless of my understanding of hermeneutics or otherwise. I think we need a Jesus hermeneutic. It's all about Him and it's only by seeing it that way that we can truly understand the Bible. Just some more heresies from your friendly neighborhood heretic. I welcome any thoughts on the subject and I point to my earlier post on Oswald Chamber's quote - could it really just be...well...simple? The Spirit wrote it all. He understands it perfectly. He lives in me. Scary!
Steve
65. Susan said the following at 3:15 PM on Jul 11
BDB [8] Re: George MacDonald
I love MacDonald's writings, but fyi he believed in Universal Reconciliation. Interestingly enough, he believed in it for similar reasons that Young wrote The Shack.
MacDonald was raised in a strict Calvinistic home where God's judgment and wrath overshadowed any teaching of God's love. His grandfather broke MacDonald's brother's violin [I think it was his brother's] and threw it into the fire with the admonition that music was frivolous and ungodly.
When MacDonald began to study the Bible for himself, what stood out to him was God's love, mercy, and grace. He reasoned that God's love would never allow him to damn anyone to hell forever, but that God would do whatever was necessary in a person's life--or afterward--to bring that person to repentance and redemption.
66. Craig said the following at 3:50 PM on Jul 11
OK, I got drawn back in! :-)
In response to Susan's (#65) post, I have a major problem with Universalism, in that it relies upon emotional views to override the clear statements of Scripture.
The Bible is clear: there will be a judgment. Those whose names are not found written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. Evildoers will be destroyed (regardless of what that means, it doesn't mean reconciled to God and rewarded with eternal life). There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (which may or may not cease after a time, depending upon your view). These biblical statements cannot be reconciled with universalism. Nor can the idea that there are other ways to eternal life, other than through Jesus. Only He has the words of eternal life. Only He is the way, the truth, and the life.
So, while God desires ALL men to be saved, that does not mean they are. I believe God has given us the freedom to reject Him. If you are of the reformed theology, you would say that God has not elected them to salvation. But, either way, Universalism is not a concept that can be supported by scripture. rather, it relies upon emotion, which is no firm foundation at all.
Steve: Thanks for your words and posts. I share your heart, and frequently find myself nodding in complete agreement with your posts.
Tom: Thanks for responding to my posts in a non-adversarial and non-argumentative way. I think we wrapped up the discussion in the way these types of discussions ought to be wrapped up by believers!
OK, I am going to enjoy my weekend. Peace and Grace to all!
-Craig
67. Ted Slater said the following at 4:34 PM on Jul 11
Susan (65) -- It sounds like you're saying that "a Calvinistic home" is necessarily one where God's wrath and judgment overshadow any teaching of God's love. You may not have meant to convey that, but that's the way it came across.
I see "Calvinism" as emphasizing God's grace, as making much of His kindness toward sinners like me. At least that's been my experience with Calvinism and Reformed doctrine.
68. Craig said the following at 11:16 PM on Jul 11
I just sent an email to Lise setting out my exhaustive (at least for tonight) views on hell, the mortality of man, and the final judgment. I am not going to burden this blog with all of it. But, if anyone wants me to email it to them, or to continue this discussion without burdening this blog, just send me an email to:
craig DOT bennett AT soah DOT state DOT tx DOT us
Peace and Grace!
69. Brandon said the following at 12:31 AM on Jul 12
Tom (#26)
Immoral based on the ethical standard that begins with the idea of empathy and concern for others. Fairness arises from that axiom.
70. Tom Neven said the following at 5:13 PM on Jul 12
Brandon (#69)
And who set that standard? Why is it prescriptive? What happens if I choose to ignore it, and who decides?
If by force or by guile I can kill you and steal everything you own, why should I not? So I have a lack of empathy and don't believe in fairness. So what?
In short, I'm familiar with all the arguments based on empathy and fairness, and they carry zero weight. They have no power to force people to behave a certain way and, more important, they give the wider society no right to condemn anyone who chooses not to follow them. Indeed, under such a system, the concept of rights is meaningless.
And then all that's left is force, the powerful lording it over the weak. And that's no ethical system.
Every answer you give comes down to, "Says who?"
I'll save the time of going through an endless regression to get to the ultimate question: Says who?
71. Susan said the following at 2:55 PM on Jul 14
Ted (67) It sounds like you're saying that "a Calvinistic home" is necessarily one where God's wrath and judgment overshadow any teaching of God's love.
No, I was relating what I read in MacDonald's biography.
Any sort of community, though, can become abusive including families and churches. People who have lived under the condemnation of abusive authority touted as God's judgment are apt to be gun shy about it. When they discover the greatness of God's mercy and grace, they may continue to have a lot of trigger points where the genuine justice and judgment come in.
72. John said the following at 4:32 PM on Jul 17
Here's something that might throw a wrench into your all's theology:
Since God is everywhere, maybe the damned suffer for eternity because they're forever in His presence.
Did God tell Moses that he could not look on Him directly?
Haven't prophets said, "I am undone, unclean"?
Being a sinner in the presence of Holiness is painful!
It's not unlike unbelievers being in the presence of a lot of believers. They don't feel right. Sometimes the opposite is true.
I know myself, I never wanted to go to a church except for weddings.
I never spent time around believers.
Maybe eternity is like that writ large!
Thank about it.
"Where Scripture is silent, we are free."
I'd be careful where I throw about that statement.
73. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:13 AM on Jul 18
John (#72),
You ain't from the South, are you?
your all's:
it's y'all's
lol.
Anyway, that IS a very interesting way of looking at it. Your right...being confronted with perfection when you are not perfect is pretty damning. The only image I need is me in a room of supermodels trying to hide the fact that my stomach isn't flat and that my thighs are too big...only multiply that by 10's of 1000's...
74. Belle said the following at 4:08 PM on Nov 4
Many need to STUDY their Bible instead of wasting their time on this book.
And I mean study, not just read. Because the God of the Bible is NOT represented anywhere in the pages of this book.
75. Trish Pickard said the following at 9:34 PM on Nov 27
I was set not to like the book, The Shack but after reading it, I thought it was really good and thought provoking. All the time I reaad it, I kept thinking it needs a study to go along with it. I finally decided God was urging me to write a study which I did. If anyone would like it, email me at prayerdigm.bookstudy@yahoo.com. I would be glad to send you the study. You are welcome to use it and copy it for others.
Trish Pickard
76. LG said the following at 1:00 PM on Nov 29
I loved The Shack, and never once thought of it as anything more than just a book. As a Christian, it is rather disconcerting to me when legalism determines what we can and cannot read. How about a book burning, too?