“The Shack” is “The Message” outhouse.

“The Shack” is not about a basketball player it is a book that twists the Gospel. If you are buying into the message of this book thought up in an outhouse you are buying into damnable heresy. The endorsement on the cover of this heretical book is from Eugene Peterson, author of “The Message”. “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ did for his. It’s that good!” Eugene Peterson, author of The Message (Front cover endorsement)

I for one am fed up with those who quote “The Message” as if it were the Bible. It is not. It is nothing but a very bad paraphrase. Stop quoting “The Message” on your media programs or I will turn you off for good. Stop quoting “The Message” from your pulpits or I will walk out of your church. Stop reading from “The Message” in your Bible studies or I will not attend. Why? Because Eugene Peterson popular paraphrase of the Bible is twisted. He has no biblical discernment, his bad paraphrase of the world of God is not the word of God no matter how popular it has become. If you cannot use a literal version of the Bible to get across your teachings perhaps you should not be teaching at all. Now Eugene Peterson is endorsing even more twisted writings for your deception.

Having said that, those with ears to hear really do need to know what is wrong with “The Shack” by William P. Young that is now widely accepted in postmodern churches. Read the article about this book I have a few quotes from it below.

Deceived by a counterfeit “Jesus”: The twisted “truths” of The Shack & A Course in Miracles – CWN

“Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or
Mormons, Baptists or Muslims…. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters.”
–The Shack’s “Jesus.” [1,p.182]

The Shack calls for a similar denial of reality. Yet countless pastors and church leaders are delighting in its message. By ignoring (or redefining) sin and guilt, they embrace an inclusive but counterfeit “Christianity” that draws crowds but distorts the Bible. Discounting Satan as well, they weaken God’s warnings about deception. No wonder His armor for today’s spiritual war became an early victim of this spreading assault on Truth. Roger Oakland, author of Faith Undone, hinted at this transformation in his article “My Trip to the Rethink Conference:”

“For nearly two thousand years, most professing Christians have seen the Bible as the foundation for the Christian faith. The overall view at the Rethink Conference, however, is that Christianity, as we have known it, has run its course and must be replaced…. Speakers insisted that Christianity must be re-thought and re-invented if the name of Jesus Christ is going to survive here on planet earth.”[3]

No room for the historical Jesus?

Must we reimagine God to make Him fit the rising universal church?

That seems to be the aim of The Shack’s female “God.” Here she is speaking to the main character, Mackenzie (Mack for short):

“For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest that you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.”[1,p.93]

Full article


Also read what Dave Hunt has to say about “The Shack”

Then read Dr. Norman L. Geisler and Bill Roach Critical review of The Shack.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 Don Koenig is the founder of ThePropheticYears website. He has been publishing articles on the Internet on Bible prophecy, biblical discernment and Christian worldviews since 1999. You can find well over a thousand articles and thousands of comments written by Don from the homepage of this website.


Share

63 thoughts on ““The Shack” is “The Message” outhouse.

  1. I’ve had it!! Bullshack is what I call this! I mean, seriously, what does this book have to offer to anyone? “My Papa”! It’s pathetic! What foolishness for mankind to think God resides within them, indeed that they “are” God. Look around, people, how can you be so naive? Man is sinful and incapable of living a pure life. Were it not for the fact that we have a loving and merciful Father in heaven who gave His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world, we would all be condemned to hell. God wasn’t interested in the sacrifices the Israelites brought them! He wanted them to obey His commands out of love and fear for the God that had lead them out of Egypt to the holy land and that’s what He’s asking from us as well. God doesn’t owe us anything! Still He has mercy on all those who earnestly seek Him and follow His ways. So what’s so wrong with this message of repentance?? In return you are forgiven and granted eternal life; it’s a win-win situation! These imposters are just perverting everything for their own worldly gain. I don’t belief in religion that says you can reach heaven, moksha, nirvana or whatever all by your own efforts. Man simply is not capable. Moreover, there is but one almighty and allknowing God. And the only way for us to “reconcile” is by repenting of our sins and accepting the Son of God as our Savior. All this mystical mumbo jumbo nonsense is leading nobody to repent and to be born again. On the contrary, in their delusion they’re opening themselves up to demonic influence, but NOT the Holy Spirit you receive upon acceptance of Christ! But oops, I forgot, no such thing as demons and devils eh? Oh and sure, there’s no such thing as evil and sin either! I guess that explains why people are so revengeful, uncontrolled, deceitful, unloving, self-centered and dishonest! And I would have to include myself among these sinful people, by the way. That is why I became a Christian in the first place, because I am a SINNER. I’m unworthy to be called a child of God yet I am deemed worthy of grace by Christ. And who is the child of God? The one who admits his error and humbles himself before God, is it not?

    In Biblical terms I’d say woe unto them for leading others astray with their false universalist teaching! Your Papa surely is not the God of Israel!

  2. Wow.. so did you actually read the book? Because your references seem pretty out of context. The first line you quoted regarding “I have no desire to make them Christian” really bothered me at first too. But then I reread the page and realized that the author is speaking in terms of Corporate Christianity that has been overrun by rules and judgment.

    Regarding the quote “For nearly two thousand years, most professing Christians have seen the Bible as the foundation for the Christian faith. The overall view at the Rethink Conference, however, is that Christianity, as we have known it, has run its course and must be replaced.” – If Christianity is about a relationship with the Creator of our constantly-changing world, does it not make sense that we diverse the way we communicate and reach people in order to show God’s relevance to their lives? The church, the actual building and business that it has become, was not created by God. The books of Acts shows The Church, the body and bride of Christ, as a living, breathing, growing group of people who lived together in love and faith, helping those who needed it and adding to their numbers in incredible ways. That part doesn’t need changing. But the way we as a church reach people? You can’t be afraid of change. If Christianity never evolved in our changing world, we’d still be stuck in the Crusades! Not to mention we’d all be Catholic. Don’t put God in a box! Reforming the way we reach people doesn’t mean we are changing the truth of the Bible or the character of God and the roles of Jesus and the Holy spirit. God can do incredible things on top of the things he has already done and is already doing. My dad, someone who has really struggled with the concept of God since I was born, is actually willing to read the Shack. Why? Because it does something that churches and many religious scholars have a hard time doing. It shows God in an incredibly real and relevant way. The book is about something more than what’s on the surface. We know God isn’t truly the characters of Papa, Sarayu, and the exact version of Jesus this book describes. But we are given a glimpse into the very nature of God’s unconditional love, mercy, comfort, and his willingness to meet us right where we are, in the middle of the mess we’ve made, and to take us into His arms and rescue us. The God I serve is WAY more interested in building relationships with His children than watching His servants fight over legalities.

  3. Whitney,
    Why do you quote the lies in the Shack and heretical rethinking conferences to claim that the teaching in the Shack is valid? True Christianity can not change it is founded on unchangeable truths. The foundations have been laid and they are given in the New Testament.

    You do not tell people the truth about Jesus by compromising the gospel so that it is a different gospel than the one given through which all mankind MUST be saved. The Shack and these rethinking conferences of the Emergent Church are distorting the gospel. Paul himself said if anyone gives another gospel than the one he presented let them be damned. He said it twice in a row to convey the importance of keeping the gospel pure. He said that because he was given the gospel of salvation by direct Revelation from God. I will say it again. If anyone gives you any other gospel than the one given in the New Testament scriptures, let them be damned. They certainly will be.

    There is a difference between presenting the gospel in a way to reach diverse societies and in making it a false gospel with a different Jesus and a way to God that saves no one.

    I do not wish anyone to read the Shack especally your dad because it will not lead him to Christ is will move him to believe in false religion and false security. This book is doing more harm to true Christianity than any book I can think of because it is subtlety deceptive, but that is how Satan works. Just put a little poison in with some truth and watch the gullible humans who never accepted the truth suck it up.

    Your dad and many others that read that book will now accept lies that make Christianity compatible with New Age and Eastern teachings. It is not. Christianity is 180 degrees opposed to all other religion. Your Dad will now become completely unreachable and hostile toward true Christianity. I know because those who read the book email me and they are hostile to the foundational truths of Christianity. They now think they are enlightened because they read the Shack. Now their eyes are opened toward pluralist Universalism where God will save everyone because He is so in love with all us wonderful human beings. They are also hostile toward historical Christianity because like in the book they confuse psuedo Christianity with true Christianity and blame Christians for the sins of institutional Christian play actors.

    God is only willing to take you in His arms if you live in His Son through a spiritual rebirth otherwise you are still dead in your stinking sins to Him. God is interested in saving those He called to be saved. He could care less about building relationships with walking dead people. Making God to be like a human is idolatry and Blasphemy.

    Here is a short but very good book review of the Shack. Any true Christian should be able to see the poison in the book and should be telling everyone they really care about to stay away from it. It is extremely deadly to those who are Christian in name only and those who already wish to reject the narrow way through the blood of Jesus. Those who are enlightened by the darkness in this book will be led toward pluralist Universalism not Christ. They will then attend the Church of Oprah and recite “The Secret” as there gospel. You have been told.

    http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/BookReviews/book_reviews.asp?ID=387

  4. someone gave me this book for Christmas,telling me it was the best book they ever read,blah,blah—i started to read this —–what a load of junk! At first i thought it was me since it was compared to “Pilgrims Progress”–but the more i read the more confusion i felt and i wasn’t at peace about what i was taking in –so i started checking it out withsome people i consider to be reputable–so glad to know i wasn’t losing the ability to understand what i was reading—it just didn’t feel right

  5. You would think Christians would have some biblical discernment like you and sense that the book is not right. But, apparently they do not. Like programed computer viruses they just pass on the infection to everyone on their contact list. These days Christians really need to pass all “Christian” books through a virus checker.

  6. Just to show how corrupt “The Message” translation is … just take a look at JOHN 3:16, in comparison with the KJV:

    THE KJV

    “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

    THE MESSAGE

    “This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.”

    Note how Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus on the need to become born-again, and it’s obvious JOHN 3:16 speaks of ETERNAL LIFE. But THE MESSAGE distorts the intent and makes it appear as if Jesus is simply referring to a better type of worldly life.

  7. One of many passages in the Message that miss the real message. Those who quote from The Message as if it is the word of God are not doing the Church any service. I will walk out of a church or a study that promotes the use of that postmodern paraphrase.

  8. One of the problems of our modern secular world is the massive intrusion or the storyteller. We have been conditioned to allow ourselves to enjoy the parts of a story we like or believe and to suspend our disbelief regarding anything we don’t seriously consider truth. This is what happened to me as I read The Shack. It was billed as a true story and i read it as such. I kept telling myself “This could happen.” But I started reading lies well told. At first i suspended disbelief. Pretty soon I realized I’d been had. At that point I had to keep reminding myself that this is just a clever novel. In the end I find that I’ve been duped by my own willingness to submit Godly wisdom and discipline to my enjoyment of the American storytelling culture; namely movies. Sorry, Lord.

  9. “True Christianity can not change it is founded on unchangeable truths. The foundations have been laid and they are given in the New Testament.”

    While i believe that what you say here is absolutely true, I think what Whitney was saying is that while the content of the Gospel does not ever change, the method in which we deliver it can and must change and evolve in order to relate to the culture in which it exists. Consider sharing the truth of the Gospel with a group of indigenous people…you must rework the timeless truths into a format that can relate to the audience.

    Even Paul said that he has become all things to all people in order to save people (1 Cor 9:19-23). Or take the Gospels, Luke wrote to a Gentile audience while Matthew likely wrote to a Jewish audience. The content remains the same, while the method f delivery remains fluid. Young is just taking the timeless truths of the perfect love which exists in the trinity and shows it to the audience in a way that they can connect with.

    Also, it might be wise to remember that it is not a theological or apologetical textbook. It is a fictional story which is drawn from theological truths, much like the Left Behind series or many other books that you’d find in your local Christian bookstore.

  10. Changing delivery to reach a postmodern generation does not include inserting heresy. Paul did not become a heretic in order to give the gospel.

    Christians that write Christian fiction about the nature of the Father Son and Holy Spirit ought to have Orthodox Theology.

    I think Dr. Norman Geisler points out the problems with The Shack better than anyone so I will let him point out the problems in The Shack. I also include his conclusion.

    Problem One: A Rejection of Traditional Christianity
    Problem Two: Experience Trumps Revelation
    Problem Three: The Rejection of Sola Scriptura
    Problem Four: An Unbiblical View of the Nature and Triunity of God
    Problem Five: An Unbiblical View of Punishing Sin
    Problem Six: A False View of the Incarnation
    Problem Seven: A Wrong View of the Way of Salvation
    Problem Eight: A Heretical View of the Father Suffering
    Problem Nine: A Denial of Hierarchy in the Godhead
    Problem Ten: Ignoring the Crucial Role of the Church in Edifying Believers
    Problem Eleven: An Inclusivistic View of Who Will be Saved
    Problem Twelve: A Wrong View of Faith and Reason
    Problem Thirteen: It Eliminates Knowledge of God
    Problem Fourteen: It Entails Divine Deception

    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 http://www.normgeisler.com.

    For the complete explanation of each of the problems that Dr Geisler points out about The Shack read the following article.

    http://www.normangeisler.net/theshack.html

  11. I can definitely agree with you about some theological problems with this book, and that is why i don’t think that you can use this as a textbook. God often chooses to reveal himself to people through conversations and relationships, and I know from having read this book with people; some have been more willing to enter into a dialogue with me about who God is. Here is where I believe that the book shines, in that people who are opposed to the wrathful God that they grew up hearing about in Sunday school get to see that God is love (1 John) and that he enters into our pain to bring healing.

    Don’t hear me wrong, I do believe that God is holy, and that his wrath must be satisfied; but don’t recall ever having met a single person who is attracted by that view of God. Perhaps this will justify you calling me a heretic, but It is the love and mercy of God that draws people to repentance, not the fire and brimstone.

    So is it possible God is using this book to express his love to people who have been hurt by the Church’s repeated attempts to convert them by force?

  12. And to read this within the context of a conversation can allow believers to correct some of the theological points that are misleading. I have found that to be valuable, because yes, there are people who read this without having a grounded theological framework to process the book, and it can be precarious, but were there perhaps people who said the same things about “The Chronicles of Narnia?” I mean, we don’t want people thinking that Jesus is a Lion do we? Because according to 1 Peter 5, I thought the devil is the Lion…

    Oh how confused I am…

  13. You simply are not getting it, the book is heretical for the reasons pointed out by Dr. Geisler. There are plenty of sound Christian books to recommend to people where people can get the correct view of God. We do not need to recommend books that are really a different gospel to try to win over a postmodern generation because they have chosen to reject the absolute truths about God taught in the Bible. You cannot spin the truth about God and Christ and make true converts to Christ. What would Paul really say about preaching a different gospel then the one given?

  14. So what are the “sound Christian books” that would capture the attention of someone who has felt attacked by the church, by God, who has felt the stinging pain of betrayal, of guilt, and the pain that Mack deals with?

    And again, what I was saying is that this book can be a really good addition to conversations that are happening between a believer and another person. the conversations are more important than the book itself, but the book can breach the walls and opposition that people have built up due to hurts and pain that have built up over the years. I would not think that the book by itself is sufficient, because there are potential issues, but why not have it be a complimentary resource?

    Unless of course you have other suggestions that are better? And thinking in terms of someone who might be hostile to the Gospel, because while JI Packer or Dallas Willard, or Lee Strobel or others might be solid theologically, I don’t see them really connecting with your average 20-30ish adult in the ways that The Shack can.

  15. You might start with the Bible and the Christian classics like Pilgrims Progress.

    I really am not buying your argument that all these postmodern people feel that they are being attacked by the church, by God etc. I think it is a false argument used to justify promoting a heretical book. How and where are Christians attacking postmoderns in our churches? If anything the church is compromising the gospel and their own worship services to appease them.

    Postmoderns are not coming to church or God because nobody is getting through to them that they are lost sinners that must repent of their sins and be saved by the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Shack certainly is not teaching that.

    Postmoderns want to believe that they can define their own truth and the The Shack appeals because it also does the same..

    Postmoderns reject the absolute truths of the Bible and that is why they cannot be reached with the truth. No amount of watering down the gospel to get to their level of relativism is going to get them to accept what is required of them for their salvation.

    Telling them lies about the nature of God might appeal to postmoderns looking for a form of Universalism or religious pluralism but it does not put them on the path to salvation.

    The Shack may connect with biblical illiterates but it is a very subtle deceptive connection.

  16. There’s a good book you might want to read to get a view of how people today see the church. It’s a book called UnChristian, by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. It’s backed by the Barna Institute, which is known for having a fairly accurate view of our culture. I’d suggest reading that to get a better view of what people today think of the Church, and then by logical progression, how they view the God of said Church.

    But then again, perhaps you think that Barna is leading people to Hell in a handbasket as well?

  17. I have no false illusions about how people today view the Church. How would you expect unsaved people and people who reject God’s truth to view the Church? The true Church of God was never popular in the world and the day it becomes popular (before the return of Christ) it will no longer be the Church

    You are also confusing the Church with the institutional churches like Catholicism and liberal Protestantism. If people see through all the phoniness in these that is good. Then they may be opened to hearing the true gospel. There is no one harder to reach with the true gospel than people bound in false religion.

    The main purpose of the Church is to teach the gospel of salvation by grace through faith to the whole world. It is high time that “Christian” authors got with God’s program instead of trying to adapt to please the world with their own ear tickling false doctrines.

  18. The FEAR of God is the BEGINNING of Wisdom**.

    The Shack will not cause the fear of God, neither will the local Ind. Fund. Baptist Church.

    Three errors beloved today.

    1. God is love.
    2. Judge not.
    3. The two verses above ARE the Bible.

    Truth hated today,Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

    So, God loves and hates people?

    Is that not a contradiction?

    There is no contradiction, as God explains, here,

    for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

    The word agape, Strong’s G26, can be, and in this case is properly defined as benevolence.

    Love as benevolence does not contradict Psalm 5:5 love as affectionate, friendliness does.

    Example, on the day Judas Iscariot betrayed Christ, God supplied him food, and breath, and life as he plotted, then carried out the betrayal.

    Then God took away all His benevolence and exercised His hatred of Judas. He is still exercising His hatred of Judas, and He always will!

    John 3:16 can be applied to Judas as well as Psalm 5:5.

    Same way they both apply to ALL men today!

    Now that will produce the fear of God that MAY bring the beginning of Wisdom**

    Serve the Truth, the Living Word, Jesus Christ,
    Craig

    ** Wisdom is capitalized because in God’s Holy Word Jesus Christ is WISDOM!

  19. One thing you should get straight so that you no longer sound ignorant is that the “Message” is an actual translation. It is not a paraphrase. Eugene Peterson was working with the original languages and translating into modern day/everyday common english. A paraphrase would be someone coming along reading an already pre-existing english text and trying to get the “idea” across in more soft easy to understand language. What makes it different than many other translations is the it is a functional/dynamic translation similar to the NIV. More literal translations would be the ESV, NASB, etc. Literal is misleading though because no language can ever be translated literally. It is impossible. All translations are subject to translators decisions as to the expression and transmission of meaning. I wonder in that case if you should walk out of every bible study or church that uses a translation. I mean we should all be using the original languages anyway, right? Oh but then which texts from the original languages should we use? Do we use the Masoretic texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Byzantine Family, Alexandrian Family, or Antiochian Family?

    Besides why all the hate towards the language that Eugene Peterson uses versus any other translations? It seems the there is precedent to put the scriptures in the common tongue. Koine Greek for example mean “common greek.” The authors of scripture chose not to put it in classical learned language of the day. The 1611 translators of the KJV explicitly say that they are translating the original languages into the common day tongue. Since then the KJV has under gone many revisions to keep it in the common tongue (now a tongue that is not so common). If I remember correctly Martin Luther fought hard to make this a reality in Germany as well. It seemed that the people who were restricting such translations were infact the one that were working to deceive people away from scripture. Eugene Peterson seems to be working in a similar spirit as any heroes of our faith and great translators that have come before him. I would be curious to hear your thoughts.

  20. I believe Eugene Peterson himself said “The Message” is a paraphrase. I also understand that he said he did not write it to be taken as scripture or studied in place of the Bible. Sure Peterson works with the Hebrew and Greek texts as a translator would but creating a whole translation yourself from scratch that stands the test of peer review is a whole other ball game. A serious translation is a major life work usually done by many. It is hardly something created by one man like a pop book.

    There are plenty of good translations out there and plenty of easy reading English versions that are actually dynamic translations. But, in my opinion, anyone who does any serious study of the Bible should stick with the best translations. The best versions like the KJ, NKJ and NASB try to best keep word for word translations where it is possible and where word for word losses something in the translation they still get the true meaning of the passage across. This is not an easy task and that is why the best versions had a large staff of experts that looked at all manuscripts and aids available. Almost all of what they translated stood the test of time and that is why they are classics. Do you really think Peterson did anything in that league with “The Message”?

    The problem with Peterson’s version is that many meanings he puts on the passages simply cannot be found in the scriptures. In other words, he wrote in his own views into the paraphrase. Much like others did in the “Living Bible” (another paraphrase). Also, in my opinion Peterson lacks biblical discernment to correctly get the message across (pun intended). We see this from the people he enforces and associates with and from his endorsement of a clearly heretical book like “The Shack”. So why should I expect someone that would endorse a heretical and even blasphemous book to correctly paraphrase or translate the scriptures?

  21. This is straight from the front pages of the Message, “The Message is a contemporary rendering of the Bible from the original languages, crafted to present its tone, rhythm, events, and ideas in everyday language.” Sounds like he thinks it is a translation not a paraphrase. I am not aware of anytime Peterson refers to it as a paraphrase (maybe you are and you could enlighten me). It was constructed completely differently than the Living Bible. And it was peer reviewed and had many reputable scholars help him that you nor many of your (i am guessing, neo-reformed) buddies would call heretics. Some of which are Moises Silva who helped translate the NASB, NL, and ESV, Darrel Bock, Donald Hagner, William Klien, and at least a few others. Granted there is not a perfect distinction between paraphrasing and translation and I am sure that Eugene paraphrased certain things in his translation. But that was my point every translation even the most literal has some amount of paraphrasing yet they are still called “translations”. As a category the Message falls under a very dynamic “translation”. Do not get me wrong though I would not recommend that people only read The Message. I would encourage all English readers to pick up multiple translations to get a better understanding of the transmitted meaning. Yet I also would not recommend that a person read just the KJV, NASB, or ESV. If you are stuck in one translation style you will only see the light shown by that style. It is good to get diversity. Especially for those that cannot go to Bible College or Seminary and learn original languages which more than 95% of the people in our pews. Do you read in original languages?

    I think that The Message can offer some good insight on certain passages and can help those with limited christian conditioned vocabulary understand things that scripture teaches. Obviously it is not the final arbiter or truth nor is any translation, last I checked inspiration was reserved for original autographs. You can act like you have the corner on complete truth. Which you will fail at. It has already happened before, it was called modernism. Everyone spoke and acted like their way was the only way. It just blew up with a bunch of know-it-alls and we got the bloodiest century know to man. Post-modernism’s rejection of universal absolute truths will fail as well. But where they both go wrong is that they handle truth as object or a subject. Yet truth is neither of these as you and I both know that truth is a person and His Name is Jeshua. The “truth” (pun intended) of the matter is that if we approach truth as a person our conduct is not so hateful as the speech that you have been throwing out towards Paul Young and Eugene Peterson and towards others who have posted on this blog. I am actually quite shocked at some of the language that you use and the tone that you have taken with people who have commented. I quote from your policy section, “Also keep in mind when you comment that this is a Christian Blog.” Honestly, I feel that you have hurt the testimony of Christ by some of your posts. Ecclesiates 10:12 -Words from a wise man’s mouth are gracious, but a fool is consumed by his own lips. Proverbs 22:11 -He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is gracious, the king is his friend. Ephesians 4:29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. There are many other verses about edification but I am sure you know of all of them. I just quote these to encourage you to be more gracious and useful with your words. Unbelievers need to hear and see us believers build one another up (that is how they know that we follow him). As for people like Eugene, Young, and Whitney above I think you owe them an apology. You can stand behind your beliefs without acting un-Christlike.

  22. What I said was quite accurate this is from Wikipedia which quotes Peterson.

    The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language was written by Eugene H. Peterson and published in segments from 1993 to 2002. It is a paraphrase of the Bible. Peterson states his reasons for creating The Message as follows;
    “ While I was teaching a class on Galatians, I began to realize that the adults in my class weren’t feeling the vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek. Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language. I knew that the early readers of the New Testament were captured and engaged by these writings and I wanted my congregation to be impacted in the same way. I hoped to bring the New Testament to life for two different types of people: those who hadn’t read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become ‘old hat.'[1] ”

    The Message was published piecemeal over a nine year period. The New Testament was published in 1993. The Hebrew Bible Wisdom Books were published in 1998. The Hebrew Bible Prophets were published in 2000. The Hebrew Bible Pentateuch were released in 2001. The Books of History came out in 2002. The entire Bible was released the same year and follows the traditional Protestant Biblical canon.

    Although The Message is used commonly in congregations, Peterson stated his uneasiness with this in a Christianity Today interview:
    “ When I’m in a congregation where somebody uses [The Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, “Hear the Word of God from The Message.” But it surprises me how many do.[2]

    I also read a direct interview with Peterson before he completed the OT. The interviewer asked about when his paraphrase of the Old Testament would be completed and Peterson did not correct him. Shortly after he started his work and completed some segment I recall him referring to it as a paraphrase. It is kind of obvious that “The Message” is a paraphrase, even though he uses the original languages he restates them. People writing in English often paraphrase other people’s writing in English so just saying he used the original languages does not mean he was not paraphrasing the Greek or Hebrew passages. He did not make a deliberate attempt at translation of the scriptures he was really giving his own exposition on the scriptures. Here is a critique that makes it quite clear that Peterson is paraphrasing passages

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/themessage.html

    I know I should be more careful about what I say to others, as we all should, including yourself. Your choice of words here makes the pot calling the kettle black. Sometimes we just have to tell people the truth as we see it. I have made thousands of comments, and sure, there might be a few in retrospective that I might have worded differently. But I can’t sit here and answer every criticism on over a thousand posts without sometimes offending someone for whatever reason.

    I do not owe Peterson, Young or Whitney an apology. I posted this post because Young’s book “The Shack” is heretical. If you need proofs they are available. I got on Peterson because he endorsed the Shack and because too many Christian leaders are now quoting the Shack as if it were the Bible. I did not agree with Whitney’s defense of “The Shack” so I make that clear in my comment to her.

    You know, sometimes Christians have to take a stand against heresy and not just let it take over our Churches as some do. What kind of love shows no correction toward aberrant Christians and just encourages mockers and unbelievers to destroy the faith of other Christians and does not remove demonic stumbling blocks for those that are seeking the Truth?

  23. I am curious as to why or what I said that would make me the “kettle calling the pot black?”

    Wikipedia is probably not the best source of information as when I have written term papers all of my profs would have failed me when using such a scource. Infact none of them would even accept a paper quoting wikipedia.

    Also I agree True love does correct fault. The Lord does discipline those he loves. Yet his discipline is always loving, just be careful that truth and love are walking closely together. We are not on a crusade to belittle and blugeon people into “correct belief.” Yes we stand up for what is true and what is and what is pure. But we do not abuse truth with malice and slander.

  24. I agree that Wikipedia is not the best source of information but it almost directly quoted Peterson saying what I claimed Peterson said. If you do not believe what is quoted on Wikipedia do your own search on the Internet there is plenty of information on the Internet quoting Eugene Peterson and “The Message”. He himself saw his work as a paraphrase of the Bible and so do almost all translation experts.

    Why did I say you are the pot calling the kettle black? Here are some of the things you said against me in just three comments.

    “One thing you should get straight so that you no longer sound ignorant”

    “Besides why all the hate towards the language that Eugene Peterson uses versus any other translations?”

    “many of your (i am guessing, neo-reformed) buddies would call heretics”

    “our conduct is not so hateful as the speech that you have been throwing out towards Paul Young and Eugene Peterson and towards others who have posted on this blog. I am actually quite shocked at some of the language that you use and the tone that you have taken with people who have commented.”

    “You can stand behind your beliefs without acting un-Christlike.”

    “But we do not abuse truth with malice and slander.”

    The truth is that I am not being hateful by pointing out my views on the dangers of using paraphrases as scripture or heretical books as some Christian enlightenment. Nor do I have malice toward these people and I certainly am not slandering them. Nor, am I being un-Christlike by wanting paraphrases taken out of churches and formal Bible Studies and wanting to see “The Shack” exposed for the heretical teaching it contains.

    On that note I will tell you that this post is really about “The Shack” and not about “The Message” my paragraph talking about “The Message” is there because the author of “The Message wrote an endorsement for the cover of “The Shack” heresy.

    If you or anyone needs to know what is wrong with “The Shack” it is expressed on this post and from links from this post. Also, much more has been written about the heresies since this was posted in 2008. There is even a new book out that is “Burning Down The Shack” and the Universalism of its author.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=175329

  25. Everything that you have quoted as what I have said was said in earnest. Perhaps that is the fault of written versus spoken communication. You cannot necessarily discern my tone. And you do not have to look very hard at many other of your other posts on different topics to find you even to the point of angrily cursing at some of your commentors, not just once but on many occurrences.

    It’s also funny that you say this is not about The Message yet in your original post you spent a great deal of time stating your dislike. So about The Shack, I know for a fact that Paul Young is not a universalist nor is he trying to teach universalism doctrine. How do I know this? I know him personally and have spoken to him on many occasions about my own questions and concerns that are presented within The Shack. He lives about 15 mins from my house in Oregon. I do not agree with every thing that Paul Young stands for but he is a true believer and a follower of Jesus Christ. The same Jesus who pre-existed, lived, and died to make atonement for our sins. Not some New-Age Jesus.

  26. I know that what you said was said in earnest that was my point, you are the pot calling the kettle black. Now if your going to take the low road and lie about me cursing people your just going to get banned from this blog. In fact your going to get banned if there are any more personal attacks on me and if you do not stick with the post issues.

    If you read the post I wrote there is only one paragraph on “The Message” The post was about “The Shack” and the article I quoted and linked to was about “The Shack” So that is just a matter of record.

    I know Young has said he does not believe in universalism in interviews but many have determined from his own statements that he does just that. That information is also easily found if you did some research.

    I will refer you to these two articles one has Young’s own statements at the bottom. Also note that Young had to change obvious Universalism in The Shack to even get it published. At least that was the article says.

    http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=703&zoom_highlight=paul+young
    http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=4650

    We can quibble about what form of universalism Young does or does not believe in today but if you read the summery of the book from Dr. Geisler above, there should be no argument that the book is heretical.

    by the way just because someone’s views or theology is aberent does not mean that he is not a true believer. I never insinuated that Paul Young is not a Christian or that he believes in some New Age Christ.

  27. Sorry for “going off” topic. I have heard what you said. I will read your links and think and pray about it. This is my last post on or “off” the topic.

  28. If using the world Damn (opps did it again) in the context of “quit your damn lying or you will be banned” is swearing at Michael or using “swear” words I stand guilty. I should have just called him the viper he turned out to be and stayed on biblical language. I think I had a couple of pastors that taught me that word was acceptable. Another word that comes to mind straight out of the pulpit is “that is crap”!

    Best wishes, and I do not blame you for defending people that you know but in this Blog I also have to write about what I feel I am led to write about. There is going to be disagreement from someone on just about anything I write but thankfully they either do not read the article, do not find the time to comment or never get posted because they violate my comment policy.

  29. The Message is the forerunner of what will one day be a Christless, sinless Bible. Hopefully, the remnant will not be here to see it used by the apostate church. It is significant that Eugene Peterson gave his endorsement to The Shack.

    The Shack accomplishes three things: The introduction of goddess worship; the introduction of a false “christ;” and a denial of of the purpose of the cross.

    The Message and The Shack are powerful weapons.

  30. Here is an interesting quote from Eugene Peterson on the Bible. Now, read this, and consider The Message.

    “Why do people spend so much time studying the Bible? How much do you need to know? We invest all this time in understanding the text which has a separate life of its own and we think we’re being more pious and spiritual when we’re doing it….[Christians] should be studying it less, not more. You need just enough to pay attention to God….I’m just not at all pleased with the emphasis on Bible study as if it’s some kind of special thing that Christians do, and the more the better.”

    (From–”A Conversation with Eugene Peterson,” “Mars Hill Review,” Fall 1995, Issue No. 3, pgs. 73-90)

  31. Yike!! Perhaps He ought to read it himself instead of just trying to rephrase what it says through his own lack of understanding.

  32. @ John…
    Really?!? Did not Jesus himself say that all of the law of the prophets can be summed up in two statements…love God and love your neighbor.

    With that being said, I think Peterson is a genius, because he points out the fact that there is little value in orthodoxy (right opinion) if it is not fully balanced with orthopraxy (right action).

    Now I can’t wait for you and Don to tear up this comment…Hopefully though, it will encourage someone.

  33. No doubt that Jesus said all the law and the prophets can be summed up in “Love God” and Love they neighbor as thyself.

    But the law and the prophets were given to tells us how we can do that. To then say Christians should not study God’s instructions for living is ludicrous.

    2 Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
    1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
    2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
    3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

  34. Pastors should not allow The Message in their churches, and should make sure guest speakers understand this is not something that is acceptable. This would be a start. Peterson is another in the contemplative camp, it seems, and going into this meditative state via Lectio Divina or Centering Prayer will never bring one closer to the God of the Bible.

    But that is the point of it.

    The Message is not of Christ, sorry if truth offends.

  35. Hi,

    I read many comments. I am confused about the shack too.
    I felt during reading the book I would like God to be the God of the Shack.
    I loved to read it. …but because of the confusion what I felt I put it down and take my Bible up.
    I think the Bible must be enough powerful to build me up.
    I dont need the Shack to get God known.
    I love the Bible more than the Shack. I think it is understandable. It is a pleasure to read the Bible.
    So, I think 10 portion New Testament and 1 portion Shack is not deadly.

  36. Clayton says:
    January 13, 2010 at 1:33 pm “but It is the love and mercy of God that draws people to repentance, not the fire and brimstone.”

    Sorry Clayton but there are people who come to the Lord because of the warning of judgement. I don’t remember a word spoken to me in my first encounter with a true Christian, but his gospel left me with the clear and decided impression that it was either heaven or hell and I had to make the choice. It was a long time ago but God was gracious and provided me with the complete and everlasting answer, Jesus of Nazareth, the Way the Truth and the Life.

    And as in the gospel so has it been in life, the Just and Holy nature of God gives day by substance to my salvation. Christ was judged in my stead and it was the Just and Holy nature of God that required it.

    Yes, the Cross of Christ is the greatest expression of love (he laid down his life for his enemies), but it is also the greatest expression of Justice and Holiness. Praise His name, praise Him for who He is, a Holy and righteous God who loved the world to such a degree that His only begotten Son came to be our Saviour, to be judged for sin that we might not partake of Hell but might be made the righteouness of God in him.

  37. As an adjunct to what I have just written:
    The over-emphasis that so many believers place on love is detrimental to their appreciation of holiness and justice, and will destroy their discernment in spiritual things.
    Because of ignorance regarding God’s attributes of Holiness and Justice, many of your readers Don, have lost their discernment and do not recognise strong defence of truth as being anything other than unloving criticism of other believers (or unbelievers).

  38. Personally, I have not fully read the “Shack”, I may, or may not. I remember the author stating that it is fiction. I also remember people saying this book is better than the bible, or it changed my life which put up red flags for me, because it reminded me of the argument that satan presented to Eve in the garden. I do however believe that books like this, and the message bible bible are an indictment against the Body of Christ today. You alluded to this in an earlier response about the condition of the church today. When one sees the in fighting, homosexual priests, bishops, the religious right, and left, the scourge of denomiationalism, prosperity preachers etc. I understand what some unbelievers are saying. Of course we know who is behind this mayhem in the church, this confusion, it is the devil. Oh, and i forgot to mention mega churches with over 60,000 members with overflowing wealth in need of nothing, yet there are homeless, and poor sitting on their pews. We the body of Christ has strayed, or been led so far away from the Acts 4 church example, as to become almost irrelevant in the world today. I believe that Jesus will correct this, I believe that He will raise up believers to take a stand for His Truth, I believe He’s doing this right now. The Body of Christ was never intended by our Father to be a corporation. I own a copy of the message bible somewhere in my house lol. Oh, and the NIV is not alliteral translation either, it is a thought for thought, and has errors, just like the KJ, and NASB but these errors are documented. I favor the NASB personally.

  39. About a year ago, I was shopping in my local Christian bookstore when I saw a huge display of copies of The Shack for sale. I went up to the cashier to pay for my purchase and asked her why they were selling The Shack since it’s a New Age book and this is supposed to be a Christian store. She told me that they know it’s a New Age book, but the owners of the franchise always sell whatever is on the “Bestseller” list of Spiritual books. Well, I was upset and said (very loudly) that I think it’s preaching a false gospel, and guess what? The four people standing in line behind me all chimed in and agreed! Thank God, I was starting to wonder if there were any discerning Christians left out there!

    But I did think it was interesting that the “Christian bookstore” employee openly admitted that they know it’s a New Age book! But nowhere on the display does it say “New Age”. They should be ashamed, what losers! Needless to say I will never give them my business again!

  40. Wow…

    I cannot believe that a book that has helped so many people FEEL God in a new way is being subjected to such hatred- and that is what it is- ok, so it MIGHT suggest ultimate reconciliation, it isn’t 100% scripturally based but SO WHAT?! The book IS NOT the bible, it is NOT trying to be the bible, it doesn’t WANT to be the bible, it is in no way trying to deceive people to believe such a thing. It is simply a beautiful NOVEL of an ordinary man having an extraordinary experience- that is IT!

    To be perfectly honest- I couldn’t care less if this book is ‘heresy’ or whatever you want to claim it is. It is helping MILLIONS of completely disillusioned Christians such as myself reconnect with God and actually restoring a biblical truth that the church seems to have completely thrown out in order to keep followers conforming- that truth is that following God isnt about a rule book. The bible was never a rule book. the bible is our guide to having a real, honest, open relationship with God- and this book has helped me realise the true heart of God better than any fire and brimstone talk that has been pounded down on my head for years.

    God is love. This book shows God’s love. It really is no more complicated than that. If that makes me a heretic so be it, because the God I follow came to earth as a man and ripped up the rule book so that we could have a real relationship with him.

    I enjoyed reading the article and welcome any response/rebuttal you have,

    Max

  41. Max,

    The Gospel or “Good News” is that the Son of God died and rose again and paid for the sins of anyone that believes in Him and confesses belief in Him. The Gospel is not feeling God. Nobody can ever know the Father without the Son.

    Young has been taught and he knows orthodox Christianity but he deliberately chooses to depart from it and teach universalism and other heresy because he does not want to believe the truth. He could also have written a good book without resorting to blaspheme, idols and lies but he did because he is preaching a different gospel than the one given through which all people must be saved to be saved.

    Did you even read what the esteemed Christian apologist’s Dave Hunt, and Dr.Norman Geisler, had to say about this book? The links are there in the article. I suggest you read what these apologists of the true Christian faith have to say about this book. I think Dr. Geisler especially lays out the theology problems in the book quite well.

    I sincerely doubt that this book is reconnecting people with the God of the Bible. It may be connecting people to a God make up in Young’s own mind or even their own mind but that God is not the God of the Bible. Just the fact that you do not care if there is heresy in the book says wonders about your own relationship with the God of the Bible. How can a true Christian not care if millions of people are being taught error just so they can have warm fuzzy feelings about their own spirituality?

    God is much more than love. One cannot even correctly define true agape love without knowing the God of the Bible. The book gives a false picture of God and a false picture of His love. God also did not come to earth to rip up the rule book like you said. He came to fulfill the rule book and He expects those that are His to follow His rules because if you received His Holy Spirit they are written on your heart rather than in stone. The New Testament was given by Jesus after Jesus departed and that is the new rule book for living once one is saved. I suggest that you read it. If you reject the teachings in the New Testament it proves that you were never saved. I then suggest you find the only true way to salvation.

    http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/What%20is%20required%20of%20you%20for%20God%20to%20save%20your%20soul%20for%20eternity.htm

    Young and people like yourself want people to believe that people can just come to know God through getting in touch with their inner feeling or mysticism instead of through God’s revealed way to salvation and that is a lie. Young wants people to believe that people in non christian religions can know God the Father revealed in His Son and that is a lie. Young wants people to believe in a foolish trinity that is nothing like the biblical trinity and that is a lie. Young wants people to believe that people’s sins do not separate them from God and that is a lie. Young teaches that the Christian way to salvation is just the best way to God and that is a lie. There is only one way to God and that is through Christ Jesus. I do not think I need to go on. The book is full of lies even if it is a heartwarming novel. However, so is the Little House on the Prairie series and it does not speak for God. Warm fuzzy feelings and mystical experiences do not save people.

  42. Hi again, Don. I have just come onto your site today. I am really pleased that you do take a truly biblical stance against apostasy. You are also very logical. I am delighted that you can see through what “The Shack” actually is. I was deeply saddened when some friends of mine were raving on about it. Needless to say, some of them were the same who raved on about Mel Gibson’s very Catholic “Passion of Christ.”
    I have heard The Message even quoted in churches. I cringe when I hear ministers extolling Eugene Peterson. The Christian church is so full of apostasy (of which Christ prophesied)that they cannot even see it when it is slapping them in the face.
    Thank you for standing up for the truth of the Scriptures Don. Please keep up the good work.

  43. OK, I have something to learn here…I thought the ‘Passion Of The Christ’ was an appropriate film, as well as could be done.

    Don, or other commentators, can you straighten this out please ?

  44. Martin brought it up so he can deal with what he sees as problems in the movie but remember I do not like my posts to get off of the post topic much.

  45. The Bible was written by men too, just like The Shack. The books of the Bible are open to interpretation, just like The Shack. To me The Shack just puts God in laymans terms. I think everyone walks away with something different. Say what you will; I choose to walk in the light and live my life free of dependence on worldly men who preach love but show a lack of it. I obey my father, not men who claim to be Godly.

  46. Lisa,

    All scripture is God breathed. Men spoke the words of God as they were led by the Holy Spirit. Jesus verified that all Old Testament scriptures came from God and Peter verified that Paul’s writings were scripture. The rest of the New Testament was accepted by the apostles and eyewitnesses of Jesus as pure Christian doctrine before the Canon was even firmly established.

    Certain difficult passages are opened to interpretation but everything required for Christian faith and practice are very clear. There are truths that cannot be denied by any Christian. These truths were in the Christian creeds before people had general access to all the scriptures.

    On the other hand, the Shack is just someone’s warped view of Jesus and God and many things said in the book conflict with absolute biblical truths. The author did not just put God in layman’s terms as you said, he put God and Jesus in terms of his own warped Universalism Theology. Everyone walks away with something different because everyone is believing what is right in their own eyes instead of the words that God actually revealed. Many calling themselves Christians would rather believe a book of fantasy about God than actually read what God revealed to us. A great philosopher said that stupid is as stupid does.

    You have to know what Agape love is before you can define it. Love does not tell people lies so they can believe a different gospel and lose their eternal soul. You need to rethink this and if you do not know the real gospel message I will explain it to you in the following articles.

    http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/What%20is%20required%20of%20you%20for%20God%20to%20save%20your%20soul%20for%20eternity.htm
    http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/How%20one%20is%20saved.htm
    http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/theonlyway.HTM
    http://www.livingwaters.com/good/

  47. It is clear Lisa has entered into this debate without first grounding herself in what you actually believe.
    But then it is also clear she has spent little time in grounding herself in what God actually says so its not surprising.

  48. After reading all of the above, I feel everyone here is judging! Isn’t that up to God? Our relationship with God should be from what the Bible says, and not one or anothers opinion, or interputation of the Bible. All denominations of “Religion” came from an interputation, of what was read.

    Truely we should all read the Bible and ask only God what he was talking about, for man will only give us “their” interputation.

    I commend William P. Young for his fictional novel. I see his portraying God as a “black woman” and the Holy Spirit as a “flighy little Japanese” lady as showing us the we have ONE God for all nations, no matter of race, color or creed. apart from that, which I know from others is a big thing to some, I do not see any false teachings as to what the Trinity is all about or how we must come to God, which is through the Blood of Christ, and accepting Him as our saviour.

    We must all be careful of taking one mans/womans opinion of the Bible and our God and saying they are the only truth.

    By the way, does anyone truly know what is concidered “new age”?

  49. Shirley,

    We are told in the scriptures to judge all things against what the scriptures say. We are not judging who is going to Hell. You say our relationship with God should be from what the Bible says, but how do you even determine that if you have not learned to properly discern what God said in the scriptures?

    God gave the church teachers. It is part of the five fold ministry for the equipping of the saints to full maturity. So then how can you say that Christian teachers should not teach us to correctly discern the written word? Learning does not come from osmosis, it comes from a lot of study and sitting under good teachers. I thank God for all the teachers in my life.

    God is not like a black woman and the Holy Spirit is not a Japanese Lady. There is quite a bit of false teaching in this book if you compare the allegories to what the scripture actually reveals. Just because you are not trained enough in the Bible to see the Blasphemy and heresy in the book does not mean that it does not exist. Any Google search will point some obvious errors out to you using scripture.

    We must all study to show ourselves approved. Too many people are looking for God everywhere in creation but where He is infallibly revealed.

    New Age is simply Pantheism. It is believing that God is in all and makes up all in Creation. It is worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. It is a lie from the pit of hell. God transcends His creation. God certainly is not in those still dead in their sins and God certainly is not in the Devil and his angels and God certainly is not in the evils of this fallen creation that happened because of sin.

    The Shack teaches that God is in all and it makes God dependent on Humans. It denies sovereign election. That is why God is seen as a pleading woman. It is Universalism, and it is part of a spreading heresy that is leading many into Pantheism. If you doubt that learn what the Emergent Church, Spiritual Formation and Contemplative Prayer movements are all about. It is in half of our Evangelical churches and it leading people to mystically or allegorically find God or Jesus inside their own mind instead of the revealed word. Then this God or Jesus that they created in their own mind enables them do whatever is right in their own mind. Like all the sin that is now permitted and even celebrated in the churches. How convenient! It is the way that seemeth right unto man but the end thereof are the ways of death (Prov 14:12 & 16:25).

  50. “I feel everyone here is judging!” is in itself a judgement Shirley or are feelings more spiritual and therefore not judgemental.

    Your other comment “We must all be careful of taking one mans/womans opinion of the Bible and our God and saying they are the only truth” also suggests that you think those who make strong criticisms are NOT careful. When professing Christians twist and distort what the Bible clearly says they must be corrected, or everyone will soon be in the ditch.

    I have strong views on the Bible (God’s infallible Word) and I have come to those beliefs through the teaching ministries of at least half a dozen unrelated men who generally teach the same thing. My own personal study has been to make certain the teachings I hear are true to God’s Word.

    The Laodecian Church is the church of the last days and it is notorious for its poor attitude to God’s word, a lukewarm attitude that Jesus said will cause him to spew them out of his mouth. That is going to a most terrifying judgement.

    Don for one is making some attempt to awaken people so that they will not face Christ’s judgement.

  51. It is absolutely stunning to me that anyone would attempt to humanize The Lord God Almighty with a measly comparison to humanity.

    Do some people think we are living in ‘The Matrix’ or what ?

    We can not even look upon The Lord God Almighty, The Father, without being totally consumed in these mortal bodies, from my understanding.

    The Holy Spirit as a “flighy little Japanese lady” ?…are we talking about Tinkerbell or Deity ?

  52. Great work Don. I commend you for your forthrightness and competency in God’s word. It is essential in these days that there are people as yourself who are able to take on these issues. God’s beloved church is under severe siege and deceptions are rife with false doctrines and lies of the enemy. And it’s not surprising that Jesus warned us about this. His word is full of it cautioning us about the coming apostasy. We desperately need to hear from our teachers who are not careless with the truth and who are loyal servants of our Lord Jesus Christ. I can hardly wait until He returns and restores all things. Humanity is surely making a mess of everything. May The Lord bless you, In Christ. Robert.

  53. All I can say is WOW… we must be careful not to get into flesh and defending our fleshy views to win others.. IS it not carnal to belittle others because they disagree with us? 2 Timothy 2:23-26 ” Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servants must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

    Titus 3: 1-3 “Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.”

    Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. –2 timothy 2:14

  54. S. Howard,

    I am not sure of your point? Media is not the local church. Therefore, do we cannot use instructions meant for the local church for people that give a heretical message to the whole world through written media. People who write heretical books and mislead others need to be refuted in the public arena by other Christians or else wolves in sheep’s clothing that twist the scriptures have an unopposed platform to deceive. The Canon was developed because of all the the heretical writing that existed in the early days of the Church. So even the early Church thought is was essential to weight all teachings with what the known scriptures said.

    Besides, the author darn well was told the problems in his book and he just rationalizes the heretical. Many discerning Christians have brought up the problems of this book to his attention. He would have never wrote such a book if he did not already have heretical theology to start with. From what I read, he has rejected correction coming from discerning Christians.

    Titus 3: 1:3 does not apply. The passage is not talking about testing authors claiming to be Christians. Christian were told to test all teaching against what the scriptures actually say. After testing, the Shack is mainly suitable for the Outhouse. If we in the Church cannot or should not discern truth from error we will all be led into error like the Harlot of Revelation 17. Yeah, The Shack is helping to build this yellow brick road for the gullible.

Comments are closed.