Let me say up front that I have never read the bestselling novel, THE SHACK, by Paul Young. I have also never played with rattlesnakes; I have never bungee jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge; I have never swallowed a whole jar of arsenic; I have never played basketball with my girls in the middle of a freeway during rush hour traffic. In other words, one does not have to read a particular book in order to know some things about it, especially if there are some things that can be very dangerous to one's spiritual health. Experience can be a good thing if it is an experience about a good thing.
My oldest daughter was given a copy of THE SHACK during freshman orientation at college. The Baptist Student Ministries on campus was handing out copies of it to all incoming freshmen (and freshwomen, PC style). That is a story in itself, which is one reason behind the writing of this article. I can think of more worthy reading material to give to college students or anybody for that matter.
One of these days, when I make the time for it, and when I have exhausted my current reading list, I may read THE SHACK, if for no other reason to find out for myself exactly what people are
learning about God from a fictional book written by an author who by his own admission denies the substitutionary, penal atonement of Jesus. This came on an interview with Pastor Kendall Adams on KAYP Radio, and I have the transcript before me as I type this.
This particular blog article is not intended to be a full-blown critique of THE SHACK. Others have done a great job in doing that, and I would direct a person's attention to one such source, Lighthouse Trails Research. My chief complaint has to do with the author's syrupy old liberal, new emergent, perspective on Jesus' death on the cross, which is that Jesus died on the cross basically to show us how much He loves us and how much we should love our fellow man. It is an example of sacrificial love that we should emulate. And that's about it. According to Young and others like him, Jesus' death has lots of emotional overtones to it, but it has very little, if any, theological underpinnings to it.
Backing up, I should say I have two glaring reservations about this book, even before I ever read a word in it. One is that Rev. Oprah highly recommends this book. I am sure there might be some good books out there that has Oprah's seal of approval on them, but when it comes to books on religion that she recommends, there are enough red flags that go up in my mind for me to stay clear of anything she endorses. Maybe you can't judge a book by its cover, but often it is true you can judge a book by who gives it cover.
The second reservation is the author's errant and abhorrent understanding of the whole purpose of the crucifixion of Jesus. Everything else about the book, even some "noble" or "harmless" features, will not impress me. We can debate all we want to about the "end-times" and the events around the Second Coming of Jesus; we can discuss among ourselves over who wrote the book of Hebrews; we can disagree over the exact relationship a Christian today has to the old covenant law. But when it comes to the nature of Jesus and the purpose of the cross, we better get it right.
"Who do people say that I am?" "Who do you say I am?" "I preach Christ and Him crucified." If we get the IDENTITY of Jesus wrong, and if we misunderstand the INTENTION of Jesus on the cross, then we impugn His character and insult His gospel. Everything else in any book becomes meaningless talk with some cheap entertainment value but not a lick of solid edification value. After all, is not that the plague and plight of American Christians today? Has not entertainment value superseded sound biblical teaching? When asked over and over again in various surveys, guess what makes the top of the list every time when it comes to what most people are looking for in a church?
THE SHACK fits like a hand in a glove to Americans' unquenchable thirst for light fun fare, that does not involve much thinking, much repentance and much obedience. We really are amusing ourselves to death. A relative told me once that she thought it would be far better if we gave lost people a very popular end-time fictional book than a copy of Scripture. So much for Hebrews 4:12. It seems we have come a far cry from Isaiah's cry over the holy awe of God in chapter six of his book to the disrespect shown for our Lord in such things as Bruce Almighty. I love a good laugh, but what are we doing laughing at God, laughing at His own expense?
THE SHACK is symptomatic of a deeper underlying issue. So many don't know the Word, nor do they care to, nor do they want to submit to it when they are wrong in how they live and what they believe. And I am not talking about the heathen out there. THE SHACK makes for better reading than the book of Romans. Justification by faith is antiquated. The portrayal of the Trinity in The Shack is fresh and invigorating, and who cares if it is modalism and irreverent? Don't be surprised if we have a sermon series on THE SHACK show up somewhere, or a "bible study" guide on THE SHACK that appears on Christian book store shelves. We have done that for "I Love Lucy", so why not for The Shack? A large Southern Baptist church in Oklahoma recently had Paul Young speak at their church, so we are well on the way. Who needs the apostle Paul when we can have Paul Young?
Before one misinterprets what I am saying, I am not insinuating anything about anyone who has a copy of THE SHACK or who reads THE SHACK. Like I said before, I may end up reading it myself one day. But I can guarantee you this--I will not be reading that book to get a better "feel" for what God is like. My chief fear is that due to the alarming lack of discernment among biblically illiterate and doctrinally inept people today in our churches, many will take THE SHACK as the gospel. It is not the gospel; it does not come close to the gospel; it debunks the gospel.
For any person to say that Jesus' death on the cross was not a punishment for our sin, that it did not satisfy the holy demands of a just God, that Jesus did not bear the sins of His people on the cross, that He did not die as a willing, needed substitute in our place, that it was the only way sinful man could be reconciled to a sovereign, good God, then that person whomever he or she may be has ripped the heart out of the gospel. All we are left with is a hero-type senseless brutal death that accomplishes nothing of eternal significance. If the first century Jewish leaders could not grasp the full implications of Isaiah 53, then how are we any different if we deny the vicarious, substitutionary death of Jesus that fully paid for the sins of a multitude of sinners?
Yes, in the cross, God showed His love (Romans 5:8), and yes, in the cross, we have an example to follow. But it is more than just love and it is much more than an example. If I jumped into a lake and began drowning, and while doing so, I cry out to people on the beach, "Hey, I am doing this because I love you," don't you think people would have a right to think of me as some sort of a nut case? Exactly how does that show love? How am I really helping people by drowning myself? If that is all we mean by the death of Jesus on the cross, then I guess to follow His example, we need to quit telling people to repent and believe in the gospel; instead, we should just tell people to go jump in a lake.
In 1 Peter 2:21-23, we see a legitimate case for how Jesus' sufferings are an example for us in terms to how we should interact with sufferings that come our way. Notice though that the Lord through Peter quickly moves into saying in v. 24, "who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed." The cross is more than a piece of decorative piece of jewelry; it is more than just a good headstone or memorial marker along the highway; it more than just a good model; it is primarily THE means by which God atoned for the sins of ungodly, wicked sinners, when His Son died to pay the just penalty of man's sin.
At nighttime now as part of our family devotions, our family is reading slowly through BiteSize Theology by Peter Jeffery. Last night, one of our girls read this part: "Salvation was planned in heaven but it could not be accomplished in heaven. Atonement for sin must be made to God by man's representative (Son of Man). But there was no man qualified to do this, for all are sinners. The eternal God became man (Son of God), so that by His death (Hebrews 2:14), He might accomplish salvation for His people. God became man so that as the man Jesus He could die for His people and purchase their salvation. Paul puts it like this in Romans 5:17. . ."
My girls got more solid biblical teaching in that one paragraph than they or anyone will ever get from reading THE SHACK. Perhaps it is not so much that we should have a strong disgust and hatred for this book or any like it, as if we should only be known as what we are against all the time; maybe it can be more properly stated that we should have such a strong love, enduring appreciation, and growing appetite for nothing but the pure gospel of Jesus Christ, that anything we imbibe from time to time that is of a different flavor we immediately spit out as bland or poisonous in comparison.
Yours for the Truth and not for fiction,
Chris
Friday, March 27, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
JESUS DID WHAT FOR WHOM?
Jesus was the most controversial person who ever lived. Should it surprise us then that what He did for whom would create quite a stir through the centuries?
It sounds pretty simple enough--Jesus died on the cross for sinners. How can that be controversial? Well, in 1 Corinthians 1, we read that it caused a furor in the first century, because to the Jews the cross was a stumbling block, and to the Greeks it was downright silly and foolish. Even today, those who say they believe that Jesus died on the cross are not in agreement over such matters as why He had to die, what His death accomplished, and how His death fits into the whole scheme of salvation.
Jesus did what for whom? The "what" concerns the nature of the atonement. The "for whom" concerns the extent of the atonement. Those are the two vital pieces in understanding exactly what happened when Jesus died on a Roman cross some two thousand years ago. It really is hard to separate the two, because the nature of the atonement includes the extent of the atonement, and the extent of the atonement includes the nature of the atonement.
I will first tackle the "for whom" in this article. I often do things backwards. (Remember my Acute Birthday Dyslexia issue?) For whom did Jesus die?
How can that be controversial? The answer is simple enough, right? Most of us have heard all our lives that Jesus died for everyone. He died for all sinners, and that's everyone. Let's assume that is the case, and see if it he can stand under the scrutiny of Scripture and sound logic. Why logic, one might say?
The Bible is not illogical. It is above man's reason, but it is not irrational. The Trinity is one such example. Try to explain it, and you will lose your mind. Try to explain it away, and you will lose your soul. Such notable personalities today on the Christian circuit as T.D. Jakes and Phillips, Craig & Dean deny the Trinity. While we can not fully comprehend how three persons can be one in essence, it still is not anti-logic.
The Bible is much more than logical, but it is not illogical. Isaac Watts, who wrote many of our hymns, also wrote much on the use of logic in Scripture. Paul defends the doctrine of the resurrection by using step-by-step sound logic in 1 Corinthians 15. Apologetics is the interweaving of logic and Scripture.
For our purposes for now, let's just use the logic angle to examine if the statement that Jesus died for everyone is a logical deduction from Scripture. It has been said more than once that the difference between a plagiarist and a researcher is that a plagiarist borrows from one source, and a researcher borrows from more than one source. I try my best to be a researcher most of the time, but this time I will readily admit to being a plagiarist. I have taken liberties with John Owen's famous logical approach to the inquiry, "For whom did Jesus die?"
Let us look at it from one of four possible options:
1. Jesus died for all the sins of everyone.
2. Jesus died for some of the sins of everyone.
3. Jesus died for some of the sins of some.
4. Jesus died for all the sins of some.
Three of the above are Owen's own, and I have added one myself. I suppose we could add more, like Jesus died for no sins of no one, but if that is so, then nobody would be reading a blog like this in the first place. Much worse than that, there would be no need to read the Bible.
Let us take each of the four above possible answers one by one and see how each one squares with sound biblical logic.
If #2 or #3 is correct, then we have a huge problem immediately. If only some of our sins were atoned for on the cross, then Jesus' death was an exercise in futility. If 99.9% of our sins were atoned for, then that unforgiven .1% would qualify us for hell. We can easily dismiss with options #2 and #3.
We are left with options #1 and #4. The first option has that populist appeal, because it is the one that we are much more familiar with and what we have probably heard all of our lives. So let's take that option and see how it fares with consistent logic.
If we say that Jesus died for all sins of everyone, then we can ask the next question, "Are all people saved then?" To which most will respond, "Of course not. A person must believe or trust in Jesus to be saved." Logically, then, we can rightfully deduce that the sin of unbelief will send a person to hell.
But, how can that be, when we are told that Jesus died for ALL the sins of everyone. Does that not include the sin of unbelief? If it does not, then Jesus did not die for ALL the sins of everyone. He did not die for the sin of unbelief, which naturally leads us to accept the option that Jesus then died for some (or most, or nearly all) of the sins of everyone, which leads us nowhere except hell.
So, either if option #1 is true, which would have to mean that all people are going to heaven, which is the liberal doctrine of universalism (i.e., Jesus died for all the sins including unbelief of everyone, so no one goes to hell, and all go to heaven), or option #2 or option #3 is true, which would have to mean that all people are going to hell, because there are some sins that Jesus did not atone for and He can not forgive.
No matter how one frames it, or tries to redefine it, like saying, "Well, Jesus died for all the sins of everyone, but you have to believe to be saved," we are still left with a quagmire of gigantic illogical proportions that we can not avoid. We have to end up saying that Jesus died for all the sins except one, the sin of unbelief. So, grudgingly, we have to admit, maybe under our breath, that Jesus' death is limited in some sense of the word. It is limited in that He really did not die for ALL the sins of everyone.
It is further limited when we try to describe who fits the description of "everyone." Did Jesus die for the fallen angels? They are beings, although not human beings. They are sinful beings nonetheless. Nobody credible I know has proposed the idea that Jesus died for Satan and his demons. So we have limited the extent of Jesus' death, if we maintain option #1 is still the correct one, to people only, and it excludes fallen supernatural beings.
But it must be limited even more so. What about the people who were already in Hades when Jesus died on the cross? Did Jesus die for everyone who were already in Hades? Does that mean that those in Hades can be saved? Some do put forth the notion that there is a second chance after death, but Scripture and logic rail against such a fairy tale position. (Hebrews 9:27-28)
To carry it to its logical conclusions, if option #1 is true, then we have to conclude that:
1) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it did not cover all sin, i.e. the sin of unbelief.
2) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it does not include the fallen supernatural beings.
3) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it does not include all those who died prior to Christ's death on the cross. (So, if an unbelieving person in Egypt or Rome or Damascus or Jerusalem died five minutes or five seconds prior to Jesus' final breath on the cross, that person would not be included in the "everyone" for whom Jesus supposedly died.)
To be consistent, option #1 must be rephrased: Jesus died for all the sins except unbelief for everyone except for all the fallen supernatural beings and except for all the people who were already in Hades.
How illogical must we have to be in order to uphold an illogical option when there is a better one out there that is scriptural and logical at the same time?
It sounds pretty simple enough--Jesus died on the cross for sinners. How can that be controversial? Well, in 1 Corinthians 1, we read that it caused a furor in the first century, because to the Jews the cross was a stumbling block, and to the Greeks it was downright silly and foolish. Even today, those who say they believe that Jesus died on the cross are not in agreement over such matters as why He had to die, what His death accomplished, and how His death fits into the whole scheme of salvation.
Jesus did what for whom? The "what" concerns the nature of the atonement. The "for whom" concerns the extent of the atonement. Those are the two vital pieces in understanding exactly what happened when Jesus died on a Roman cross some two thousand years ago. It really is hard to separate the two, because the nature of the atonement includes the extent of the atonement, and the extent of the atonement includes the nature of the atonement.
I will first tackle the "for whom" in this article. I often do things backwards. (Remember my Acute Birthday Dyslexia issue?) For whom did Jesus die?
How can that be controversial? The answer is simple enough, right? Most of us have heard all our lives that Jesus died for everyone. He died for all sinners, and that's everyone. Let's assume that is the case, and see if it he can stand under the scrutiny of Scripture and sound logic. Why logic, one might say?
The Bible is not illogical. It is above man's reason, but it is not irrational. The Trinity is one such example. Try to explain it, and you will lose your mind. Try to explain it away, and you will lose your soul. Such notable personalities today on the Christian circuit as T.D. Jakes and Phillips, Craig & Dean deny the Trinity. While we can not fully comprehend how three persons can be one in essence, it still is not anti-logic.
The Bible is much more than logical, but it is not illogical. Isaac Watts, who wrote many of our hymns, also wrote much on the use of logic in Scripture. Paul defends the doctrine of the resurrection by using step-by-step sound logic in 1 Corinthians 15. Apologetics is the interweaving of logic and Scripture.
For our purposes for now, let's just use the logic angle to examine if the statement that Jesus died for everyone is a logical deduction from Scripture. It has been said more than once that the difference between a plagiarist and a researcher is that a plagiarist borrows from one source, and a researcher borrows from more than one source. I try my best to be a researcher most of the time, but this time I will readily admit to being a plagiarist. I have taken liberties with John Owen's famous logical approach to the inquiry, "For whom did Jesus die?"
Let us look at it from one of four possible options:
1. Jesus died for all the sins of everyone.
2. Jesus died for some of the sins of everyone.
3. Jesus died for some of the sins of some.
4. Jesus died for all the sins of some.
Three of the above are Owen's own, and I have added one myself. I suppose we could add more, like Jesus died for no sins of no one, but if that is so, then nobody would be reading a blog like this in the first place. Much worse than that, there would be no need to read the Bible.
Let us take each of the four above possible answers one by one and see how each one squares with sound biblical logic.
If #2 or #3 is correct, then we have a huge problem immediately. If only some of our sins were atoned for on the cross, then Jesus' death was an exercise in futility. If 99.9% of our sins were atoned for, then that unforgiven .1% would qualify us for hell. We can easily dismiss with options #2 and #3.
We are left with options #1 and #4. The first option has that populist appeal, because it is the one that we are much more familiar with and what we have probably heard all of our lives. So let's take that option and see how it fares with consistent logic.
If we say that Jesus died for all sins of everyone, then we can ask the next question, "Are all people saved then?" To which most will respond, "Of course not. A person must believe or trust in Jesus to be saved." Logically, then, we can rightfully deduce that the sin of unbelief will send a person to hell.
But, how can that be, when we are told that Jesus died for ALL the sins of everyone. Does that not include the sin of unbelief? If it does not, then Jesus did not die for ALL the sins of everyone. He did not die for the sin of unbelief, which naturally leads us to accept the option that Jesus then died for some (or most, or nearly all) of the sins of everyone, which leads us nowhere except hell.
So, either if option #1 is true, which would have to mean that all people are going to heaven, which is the liberal doctrine of universalism (i.e., Jesus died for all the sins including unbelief of everyone, so no one goes to hell, and all go to heaven), or option #2 or option #3 is true, which would have to mean that all people are going to hell, because there are some sins that Jesus did not atone for and He can not forgive.
No matter how one frames it, or tries to redefine it, like saying, "Well, Jesus died for all the sins of everyone, but you have to believe to be saved," we are still left with a quagmire of gigantic illogical proportions that we can not avoid. We have to end up saying that Jesus died for all the sins except one, the sin of unbelief. So, grudgingly, we have to admit, maybe under our breath, that Jesus' death is limited in some sense of the word. It is limited in that He really did not die for ALL the sins of everyone.
It is further limited when we try to describe who fits the description of "everyone." Did Jesus die for the fallen angels? They are beings, although not human beings. They are sinful beings nonetheless. Nobody credible I know has proposed the idea that Jesus died for Satan and his demons. So we have limited the extent of Jesus' death, if we maintain option #1 is still the correct one, to people only, and it excludes fallen supernatural beings.
But it must be limited even more so. What about the people who were already in Hades when Jesus died on the cross? Did Jesus die for everyone who were already in Hades? Does that mean that those in Hades can be saved? Some do put forth the notion that there is a second chance after death, but Scripture and logic rail against such a fairy tale position. (Hebrews 9:27-28)
To carry it to its logical conclusions, if option #1 is true, then we have to conclude that:
1) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it did not cover all sin, i.e. the sin of unbelief.
2) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it does not include the fallen supernatural beings.
3) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it does not include all those who died prior to Christ's death on the cross. (So, if an unbelieving person in Egypt or Rome or Damascus or Jerusalem died five minutes or five seconds prior to Jesus' final breath on the cross, that person would not be included in the "everyone" for whom Jesus supposedly died.)
To be consistent, option #1 must be rephrased: Jesus died for all the sins except unbelief for everyone except for all the fallen supernatural beings and except for all the people who were already in Hades.
How illogical must we have to be in order to uphold an illogical option when there is a better one out there that is scriptural and logical at the same time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)