- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (2/3)
- Next Post »A La Carte (3/4)
Finding God in The Shack (II)
- 03/03/09
- 55
This review is a few weeks overdue. It was almost a month ago that I reviewed Roger Olson’s Finding God in The Shack and at that time I had hoped to review Randal Rauser’s book of the same title within a week. Life being what it is and how it is, the deadline slipped. Today I am attempting to make amends.
And so we come to Finding God in the Shack (II). This book comes from the pen of Randal Rauser, Associate Professor of Historical Theology at Taylor Seminary in Edmonton. As with Olson’s book of the same title, the publisher ensures the reader is aware that it is a theologian who is offering his professional evaluation of The Shack: “Aware both of the excitement and uncertainty generated by The Shack, theologian Randal Rauser takes the reader on a fascinating journey through the pages of the story. In successive chapters he explores many of the book’s complex and controversial issues. Thus he explains why God the Father is revealed as an African American woman, he defends the book’s theology of the Trinity against charges of heresy, and he considers its provocative denial of a Trinitarian hierarchy.”
Rauser begins his book by explaining why it is appropriate to allow a theologian into The Shack and then explains why he is particularly fond of this novel. In the subsequent three chapters he examines issues that have been of particular concern to readers of The Shack: its depiction of God, its portrayal of the Trinity and its view of authority. While in many cases he does offer firm and biblical views on theology, he also shows a proclivity to asking questions he does not answer. For example, he looks at the female imagery used for God in The Shack and asks, “Is it ever appropriate to think of God as Mother or to pray ‘Our Mother, who art in heaven…?’” He does not answer, saying only that The Shack offers no settled position and that “if we become too committed to one or another image of God, it can become an idol for ourselves and a stumbling block for others.” This may be true as far as it goes, but surely a theologian should offer answers to his own questions. Other strange statements abound such as this one in the chapter looking at hierarchy: “As for The Shack, it may be that the appropriateness of the book’s depiction of God depends on who reads the book and what prior conception of deity they bring to it.”
He dedicates the final three chapters to the most prominent of The Shack’s themes—that of suffering and evil. Rauser understands, rightly I think, that the majority of The Shack’s detractors are Calvinists and hence he sets much of this chapter against Calvinists and Calvinism. He first summarizes what he understands to be the tenets of Calvinism and then proceeds to refute them. Sadly, as I have documented elsewhere, he offers a completely fabricated portrayal of Calvinism. It is inaccurate, offensive and almost libelous. In the meta for that earlier blog post I interacted with Rauser and asked him to point to one credible source for some of the most outrageous of the statements he made. To this point he has not done so. Nor do I think he will be able to. No Calvinist I know of believes what Rauser claims to be true of Calvinists. So this whole section on suffering is tainted, at least to someone who has a realistic understanding of Calvinism. Even while Rauser does offer some valuable wisdom, it is overshadowed by his scorn for Calvinism and has irrational reaction to it.
The book’s strongest chapter may be “Finding Hope in God’s Pain.” Here Rauser shows that the doctrine of the atonement is missing from The Shack, explaining what this doctrine is and how it is critical to the Christian faith. As he does so he speaks of propitiation, of sacrifice, of reconciliation, and ultimately of the gospel. Ironically, he quotes John Calvin to support his points. Where the gospel was largely lacking from The Shack, it was refreshing to read it here.
Perhaps my greatest concern with this book is that it is sometimes difficult to separate the author’s understanding of theology from his description of the theology presented in The Shack. At times I was uncertain whether he was agreeing with The Shack or merely summarizing his understanding of what it teaches. When we combine this critique with Rauser’s habit of asking questions he does not intend to answer, we find a book that does not offer as many answers as we might like. Why should the publisher play up the fact that this book is written by a theologian if he will not use his expertise to answer the questions?
So I guess we are left with this: I would not recommend either Finding God in The Shack. Neither one deals consistently and biblically with the theology of The Shack. If you absolutely must read one or the other, go with this one; it is a better effort than Olson’s and, at the very least, it shares the gospel message. But with so many books available to us today, I have to think your time could be better spent elsewhere.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (55)
So will you be writing a “Finding God in the Shack Part 3” in order to address the issues in ways that your two reviewed authors failed to do so. I think that would make a great series of blogs, and maybe book, too.
Methinks you ought to consider writing another book on discernment centered on the fallacies of “The Shack”
Tim, you wrote: “Why should the publisher play up the fact that this book is written by a theologian if he will not use his expertise to answer the questions?”
First, it is highly unlikely that this theologian has a valid answer for the unanswered questions…
Secondly, could it be that the publisher is much more interested in riding the successful coat-tails of “The Shack” rather than actually providing the reader with an evaluation that is theologically credible? There are so many out there that have found false comfort in the heretical message of this book that a publisher will likely do well (from a sales perspective) to present a theologian’s viewpoint that is supportive.
2 Timothy 4:33For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
The readers who take this book seriously, and the reviewers who support them need our heartfelt prayers…
In Christ,
Dan…
This Shack craze clearly reveals the lack of theological discernment even within the pastorate. One of our Pastors at our Church during worship mentioned it on 2 occasions. Then during a study class it was brought up . I tried to gently engage those around me why its deeply flawed. But I told them about your site and your review and Dr.Mohler’s excellent program concerning it. Dr.James White is so right , theology matters and what I have seen with some in the christian community , it is sorely lacking.
Good thoughts Reg. I think someone should write a book on discernment instead of a book on the theology of the Shack.
Tim said,”But with so many books available to us today, I have to think your time could be better spent elsewhere.”
You should have begun and ended with this statement.
Tim, I saw your article in Tabletalk, well said, and well written.
When certain “Christian” titles strike a nerve in mainstream culture, like Shack, Purpose-Driven and Left Behind; I start to wonder if they were really written for “us.” They do however, become easy targets for critique, analysis and even spin-off books which do both. If someone finds Christ in these books and is intent on discerning their next steps through fellowship and Bible study and prayer; then, later on, we can do the mid-course corrections that will center their doctrine.
I have read, seen and heard so many interviews with author Wm. Paul Young; and I have heard so many stories from satisfied readers that I feel in terms of the “big picture,” this book has done more good than harm. The greatest potential for harm comes when the book becomes a vehicle for division within the body; a springboard for pro-Calvinist or anti-Calvinist sentiments; when in fact the heart of the book is about how God meets us in the middle of the tragedies of life, what lead character Mack calls “the great sadness.”
Another great sadness would be to miss all that, and get so focused on the book’s alleged theological shortcomings that we miss the sound of the angels rejoicing in heaven over souls being saved. I’ll take a flawed Shack over similar efforts that never break out of the Christian reading ghetto; or efforts that never happen at all.
On his original post, Tim Challies quoted a section of my book and then described the section as an “inaccurate, uninformed, fictitious view of Calvinism”. Among the statements that Mr. Challies found to be “inaccurate, uninformed, fictitious” were the following:
(1) “Adam and Eve sinned because God gave them the free desires to sin.”
(2) “Everyone who sins does so because God has formed his or her character to do so.”
(3) “the Calvinist claim that God only loves some creatures and hates others”
I was quite surprised that Mr. Challies took issue with these statements because (1) and (2) are merely corollaries of the Calvinist view of the divine decree, unconditional election and compatibilist free will that one finds in Calvin and all his epigones. In what sense, specifically, are these statements “inaccurate, uninformed, fictitious”?
As for (3), I will make two points. First, it is a mainstream position, if not the mainstream position, within Calvinism to affirm that God hates the reprobate. Is Mr. Challies really contending the point? It is true that some Calvinists have sought to argue that God loves the reprobate. Loves them so much that he decrees from eternity that they will freely choose to reject him and thereby be damned in hell. Interesting. If this is Mr. Challies’ view then what exactly is his concept of love? My concept includes (minimally) “being favorably disposed toward”. Does Mr. Challies have a different concept of love? Perhaps this is merely a semantic issue and what he calls love is what I call hate. If, on the other hand, his understanding of love follows the dictionary, then how does he explain that God determining that the reprobate be damned represents a favorable disposition?
Thanks for the review.There is a simple rule to be observed : substitute the word shack for avoid.Incidentally The Shack was recently the star attraction at a recent book burning. You can check it out at http://ian-hall.blogspot.com/2009/02/our-first-book-burning-reviving-much.html
“Thus he explains why God the Father is revealed as an African American woman”
To me this is nonsense. Talk about making God into an idol, by not allowing us to pray to Him as our Mother, this is absurd to me.
I just don’t get it. Why is this Shack so appealing? The Bible gives us the attributes of God, it clearly explains the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as our Triune God in a way that should knock our socks off. The Shack is getting better reviews than the Bible. Amamzing!
“It is true that some Calvinists have sought to argue that God loves the reprobate. Loves them so much that he decrees from eternity that they will freely choose to reject him and thereby be damned in hell. ”
Sarcasm doesn’t help.
The Calvinist believes God loves His creation. But we also believe the Bible does teach God hates sin, and even sinners. The Psalms tell us God hates sinners. It’s perfectly clear. He also says to love your enemy. Why? Because God also loves His enemy. Does God love every sinner in this world the same? I would say no. He loves His elect, and so gave His own Son for them. These elect were no less children of wrath then all other sinners.
God doesn’t owe us mercy. He owes us all hell. We are rebels, who love the darkness, and hate God. He should judge us all, but He, because of His great love, has redeemed us from our curse by making His Son a curse.
What awesome love! I see the awesome love of God as a Calvinist, because I see that God loved me before the foundation of the world, and yet i was undeserving and wicked to the core. Why did God love me? I’ll never know.
Before I was a Calvinist I thought God loved everybody the same. All sinners are beloved of God. But I now know that’s not so.
Donsands quotes me:”It is true that some Calvinists have sought to argue that God loves the reprobate. Loves them so much that he decrees from eternity that they will freely choose to reject him and thereby be damned in hell. “He then adds a terse reply:”Sarcasm doesn’t help.” But I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was simply stating clearly what it means for the Calvinist to say that God loves the reprobate. Don’t shoot the messenger.Donsands then writes: “The Calvinist believes God loves His creation. But we also believe the Bible does teach God hates sin, and even sinners. The Psalms tell us God hates sinners.”That’s right. The Bible says two things: “God loves all” and “God hates some”. The challenge of the systematic theologian is to bring these two assertions together in a coherent theoretical framework. “Interestingly Donsands admits at the end of his post that God does not love all sinners: “Before I was a Calvinist I thought God loved everybody the same. All sinners are beloved of God. But I now know that’s not so.” Does he thus believe that God hates some sinners (the reprobate ones) and loves others (the elect)? If so then presumably he disagrees with Mr. Challies. Donsands also writes: “God doesn’t owe us mercy. He owes us all hell.” As I have noted before, this begs the question since on the Calvinist view God could have elected all to eternal bliss but he chose not to. So again we must ask why God did not elect all. Theologians like Edwards (and Piper) have an answer: God chooses to damn some in order to manifest his glory more fully to the elect. Does Donsands accept that view?I still haven’t heard from Mr. Challies an explanation of how my view of Calvinism was “”inaccurate, uninformed, fictitious”. I haven’t heard him explain clearly how, as he also said in his first interaction with my book, that I am “in so many ways … really, really wrong.” He says he knows of no sources that would support my statements. Is he really that poorly read in a subject of which he claims to be some sort of authority?
“As I have noted before, this begs the question since on the Calvinist view God could have elected all to eternal bliss but he chose not to. So again we must ask why God did not elect all.”-Randal
And an even greater question would be why would God elect any at all? Rebels who hate Him, and are unthankful. But He did. He is merciful to whom He desires to be. God’s mercy is great, and I’ll never understand why He showed mercy to me. Perhaps not even in glory.
God showed mercy to Noah, and destroyed billions of people; sinners. God regretted doing this, nevertheless, these wicked sinners were destroyed, and are forever being judged, because they will forever be rebels and sinners. God justly condemned these sinners, and He surely could have done the same to Naoh and his family, but Noah found favor with God.
Answer this question: “Is there unrighteousness with God?”
Can’t He judge a sinner if He so decides to? Who are we to tell God, “You elect some, but that’s not fair. You should elect everyone.”
Is this how you see it Professor Rauser?
BTW, I am a Calvinist, but I usually don’t refer to myself this way. I have many friends who are not Calvinists, and we serve Christ together. One of my best friends is a prof at Washington Bible College, and we have debated the Reformed theology, and heated at times, but we have, by the grace of God, been able to worship, serve, pray, and have excellent fellowship together.And my friend even gives opportunity to Greg Boyd. We should probably not even be friends, but we are, because we both love Christ, and we both love the Scriptures, and we both are mature enough to see that we will most likely never agree on Romans 9 in the same way. I hope this pleases the Lord. I think it does. And when we all get to heaven, and see Jesus in glory, then my friend will see how right I was. Just kidding.
Randal RauserMaybe it’s best to admit you don’t fully understand Calvinism and what the bible teaches on the doctorines of grace.
I would suggest maybe reading Foundations of Grace, by Steve Lawson http://www.monergismbooks.com/Foundations-of-Grace-A-Long-Line-of-Godly-Men-p-16935.html, if you want a clear understanding of what the bible teaches about the sovereignty of God in salvation and His predestination of the elect.
After reading your comments it is clear that you greatly misunderstand what Calvin taught, what Augustine taught and ultimately what Paul, Peter, Moses and Christ taught. I’m not saying this to sound arrogant, but as a stong rebuke that you should not attempt to teach on that which you are ignorant.
Donsands, I agree with you. Some of my best friends are Calvinists and if it turns out I’m wrong then so be it. All I want is for people to be clear on what Calvinism teaches and what logical implications follow from it.
Curtis’ response is rather less helpful as he offers a “strong rebuke”, reprimanding me for misunderstanding Calvin. He closes with the advice that I not teach on that of which I am ignorant. All I would ask Curtis is to explain where I misunderstand Calvin. I have taught a class on Calvin’s Institutes so I would surely appreciate knowing where I am wrong.
Tim Challies complains repeatedly that Randal Rauser doesn’t *answer* all the questions. But why think that a theologian *should* answer all questions about God? I’m sure that theologians differ among themselves on such questions, but I know many who think that an important part of the theologian’s vocation is to *raise* questions. I routinely tell students at TEDS that I will be disappointed if they leave a course and have *only* questions (or think those questions unanswerable). But I also tell them that I will be disappointed if they leave with *no* questions (or if they leave without *better* questions). Yes, our job as teaching theologians is to bring biblical wisdom to ancient questions and contemporary conundra, and this means that we can and should make direct and strong theological claims. But it *doesn’t* mean that we will leave no questions — just who do we think we are? Wouldn’t that be to enter a “guilty” plea to the charge that theologians peddle conceptual idolatry?
Bringing biblical wisdom to bear on the big issues of life sometimes involves appropriate criticism of mistaken or wrongheaded views (some Challies is often recognized as being good at). But for him to refer to Randal Rauser’s portrayal of Calvinism as “completely fabricated,” “inaccurate, offensive, and almost libelous” as well as “irrational” — without responding at all to Rauser’s substantive criticisms — strikes me as an all-too-easy way of dismissing the concerns.
Tom McCall
“All I want is for people to be clear on what Calvinism teaches and what logical implications follow from it.”
“The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God. This represents the purpose of the Triune God as absolute and unconditional, independent of the whole finite creation, and originating solely in the eternal counsel of His will. He appoints the course of nature and directs the course of history down to the minutest details. His decrees therefore are eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, and sovereign…..Naturally, some problems arise which in our present state of knowledge we are not able fully to explain.” -Loraine Boettner
For me, and I’m no scholar, God is sovereign, and so He causes all things to work together for His glory, and for the good of those who love Him. And those who love Him, can only claim to love Him, BECAUSE He first loved us.
God shows mercy to whom ever He wills. He has compassion on those He loved from the foundation of the world. In one sense God hates all the children of wrath, all who are from Adam. And in one sense God loves all His creation, because He owns every sinner as His creation. Yet, deeper in the infinite heart, and eternal being of the Lord He loves the elect. There’s nothing in the elect different then those who are not His elect.We are all children of wrath, deserving of God’s condemnation.
Judas was condemned. Peter was forgiven. Yet both denied the Lord.Jesus said, “Remember, you didn’t choose Me, but I chose you, and one of you is a devil.”
So I would think that we would differ on the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, Professor Rusar. That seems to be the bottom line for us both I would think.I guess you would say I take it too far, and I would say you don’t take it far enough.
Have a blessed evening.
I was quite surprised that Mr. Challies took issue with these statements because (1) and (2) are merely corollaries of the Calvinist view of the divine decree, unconditional election and compatibilist free will that one finds in Calvin and all his epigones. In what sense, specifically, are these statements “inaccurate, uninformed, fictitious”?
I apologize for the delay in responding. I’m a couple of days behind in catching up with comments.
Back when I posted the first article excerpting your views on Calvinism, I had asked you for proof that any Calvinist believes the statements. I’d still like to see that proof. I do not mind answering questions, but you were the one who formally published statements that were, as I said, outrageous and, as far as I know, simply untrue. So while this may sound like I am trying to wriggle out of answering, I think the burden of proof is on you.
So I would challenge you again to read the quotes here and provide evidence to back up your statements. You may feel that what you’ve said falls into the realm of “necessary corollaries” but the fact remains that you have not accurately stated the beliefs of Calvinists and you’ve done so in a public, formal medium.
Mr. Challies accuses me of presenting a “completely fabricated portrayal of Calvinism. It is inaccurate, offensive and almost libelous.” Strong words indeed. In response I would note first that the extreme way that he expresses himself makes himself very vulnerable to refutation. All one would need to provide is evidence that my depiction of Calvinism is not a complete fabrication. But rather than be content with this low threshold, I will seek to provide a much more robust refutation of Mr. Challies’ accusations. I will begin by reiterating three of my points that have caused such consternation:(1) “Adam and Eve sinned because God gave them the free desires to sin.” (2) “Everyone who sins does so because God has formed his or her character to do so.”(3) “the Calvinist claim that God only loves some creatures and hates others”Let’s begin with (1) and (2). Reformed theology takes the view that God predetermines all events as the primary cause of those events. As Spurgeon said, “The creeping of an aphid over the rosebud is as much fixed as the march of the devastating pestilence - the fall of sere leaves from a poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche.” Less colorfully, Heinrich Heppe: “God has determined all things from eternity by Himself in a single actus.” God’s single predetermining act includes all the actions of human beings, including sinful actions. At the same time, Calvinism is not omnicausal as is occasionalism, for it affirms secondary causes in nature as well. For instance, God is the primary determining cause of the puck going in the net when the Oilers score a goal against the Maple Leafs, even as the hockey player is the secondary cause. The relationship between the primary and secondary causes is described as concurrence in the medieval and Protestant scholastic traditions.
The Arminian blanches at this notion: if we are predetermined to do sinful acts by God, how can we be culpable for those acts? The Calvinist replies that even though predetermined by God as primary cause, we are still culpable as secondary causes. Calvin explained this point to his critic Pighius: “For we ought not to measure by our own ability the duty to which we are bound….” In other words, even though God determines my actions, both to do good and evil, I am still responsible for those actions as secondary cause even though I could not have done otherwise. (See also the Westminster Confession, III) Calvin further explained to Pighius, “For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without wilful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them.” In other words, while it is true that God determines the will of the reprobate to sin, he simultaneously gives them the desire to sin and so they are culpable for their sin.
That is precisely my point in (1) and (2) which Mr. Challies has derided as a “completely fabricated portrayal of Calvinism”. This leaves me wondering whether Mr. Challies is uninformed about the most basic rudiments of the Reformed tradition qua divine determination and human free will. I will leave that for the blogosphere to decide. Suffice it to say, his charges that I have misrepresented Calvinism on the point are wholly spurious.
What about (3) “the Calvinist claim that God only loves some creatures and hates others”? I recognize that not every Calvinist has claimed this. Obviously. But Mr. Challies argues forcefully the other extreme that no (notable) Calvinist has claimed this. I can make two points on this score regarding (a) what Calvinists in fact say and (b) what Calvinists should say.
First, as regards what Calvinists in fact say. Many Calvinists have spoken of the hatred of God for the reprobate. The great Baptist Calvinist John Gill writes: “love and hatred are the real springs and source of predestination in its respective branches.” Much more recently Samuel Storms reflects on Jacob and Esau: “There is, therefore, in God a holy hatred that is the antithesis of his saving love.”
Second, concerning what Calvinists should say I return to the point I raised in an earlier posting: if one believes that God in Calvinism displays love to the reprobate surely that person is obliged either (a) to present an account of how this is love or (b) explain how one’s concept of love radically diverges from the common conception which includes “being favorably disposed toward”. For instance, explain how God is love to the reprobate in light of the Reformed theologian Heidegger’s description: “Reprobation is the decree of God, by which out of the mere good pleasure of His will He has resolved to leave fixed men, whom He does not elect, in the mass of corruption and piling up sins on sins and, when they have been hardened by His just judgment, to visit them with eternal punishments, in order to display the glory of His righteousness.” I would exhort Mr. Challies not to avoid this question but rather explain how, on his view, the divine decrees of preterition and damnation are an expression of love qua the reprobate.
Before Tim answers you Professor Rauser, I wanted to revisit one of your statements to me, if we could.
“The Psalms tell us God hates sinners.”That’s right. The Bible says two things: “God loves all” and “God hates some”. The challenge of the systematic theologian is to bring these two assertions together in a coherent theoretical framework. “ -Randal
“The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;you hate all evildoers.You destroy those who speak lies;the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.” Psalm 5:5
“The Lord tests the righteous,but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.Let him rain coals on the wicked;fire and sulfur and a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup.For the Lord is righteous;he loves righteous deeds;the upright shall behold his face.” Psalm 11:5-7
Seems to me the Lord hates everyone, for there is none righteous, NO NOT ONE.Unless one is righteous in Chrit’s blood by faith.
In response to your point Donsands, as I noted in my previous statement, on the Calvinist view all human actions are determined by God. This means that God determines (decrees) both the fall and the responses to his offer of salvation, either elect or reprobate. According to Calvinism, God could have created a world where there was no fall. The standard Calvinist explanation for why God created a world where (a) there is a fall and (b) the reprobate never repent, is to manifest God’s glory more fully. You find that explanation in Calvin, Edwards, Berkhof, Piper, et cetera. So to come to your point. If God hates everyone, it is because he decreed that he would make creatures who would fall and be sinful which he could then hate. If he hates only the reprobate it is because he decreed to make creatures who would not freely respond to his offer of salvation due to his refusal to regenerate them (the decree of preterition). All this forces the Calvinist back to a chicken/egg dilemma. Does God hate the sinner because he is sinful, or is the sinner sinful because God hates him? Since on Calvinism everything is determined by God, it seems you are obliged to accept the latter option. And that is not merely my opinion. There is actually substantial textual support for that conclusion from within Calvinism. Read Heinrich Heppe or Louis Berkhof for standard examples.
I await Mr. Challies’ defense of his charges against me. And if not a defense then a retraction.
Randal wrote: “The Arminian blanches at this notion: if we are predetermined to do sinful acts by God, how can we be culpable for those acts?”
First, who uses words like “blanches”? This Randal guy must be a real nerd ;-) Second, we all know the answer to this objection from scripture…
Rom. 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory
It seems to be a very clear and consistent testimony in scripture that the supreme purpose/end/design for everything is to bring glory to God… and yes this even includes hell… as Octavius Winslow so eloquently puts it…
Hell is full of the Divine holiness; holiness in the manifestation of justice; holiness in its most glorious exercise. How fearfully are the lost now learning this truth! Think it not a trifling matter, unconverted reader, to look into the bottomless pit, and to know that there is but a step and you are there! You walk to the end of the treacherous plank, and you are gone! O solemn thought! but one step between you and the quenchless flame! but one step between you and endless torment! Throughout eternity the lost soul will be testifying to this truth: “God is holy; I was a sinner; I rejected His salvation, I turned my back upon His gospel, I despised His Son, I hated God Himself, I lived in my sins, I loved my sins, I died in my sins, and now I am lost! to all eternity lost! And God is righteous in my condemnation!”
I think we can safely assume that Randal is aware of Rom 9:19-23. What we cannot safely *assume* is that (i) Rom 9 is about individuals; (ii) that is about the eternal destiny of individuals, (iii) that katertismena (in v22) is passive rather than middle. The (unconditional) individual-to-heaven-or-hell reading is understandable and plausible, but it is not the only reading of Rom 9. Nor is it, arguably, the best interpretation. Sans further argument, it would be good to stop quoting Rom 9 as a proof-text.
The real issues are still before us. TC has said that RR’s portrayal of Calvinism is “inaccurate,” “offensive,” “fabricated” and “almost libelous.” RR has made a case that his portrayal indeed is consistent with the views of many Reformed theologians. I note that RR has limited himself to examples of Reformed theologians who affirm secondary causality. For Reformed theologians who embrace occasionalism (e.g., Edwards, *Original Sin,* pp. 400ff) the problems raised by RR are just that much worse. So we are still waiting: (a) for TC to show that RR’s portrayals are either mistaken or perverse, and (b) for him to deal with the theological problems highlighted by RR. Asking for (b) might be unfair for a blog post, but surely (a) is not.
“What we cannot safely *assume* is that (i) Rom 9 is about individuals;”
I can “safely assume”, and believe, when Paul wrote about Jacob and Esau, and God electing Jacob, before either of these children have done good or evil, that Paul was thinking of individuals.Especially, in verse 16 when the Apostle says, “It’s not to HIM who runs, or HIM who wills, but to God who shows mercy.
Also, Paul talks about Pharoah, and he certainly is an indiviual who was judged.
“Does God hate the sinner because he is sinful, or is the sinner sinful because God hates him?”
Both really.
“The LORD has made all things for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of evil.” Proverb 16:4
God is sovereign over all creation for sure, even those who will be judged. That should bring fear to our hearts, and make us cry out for mercy.
Also: “..hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, …being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledg of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”. Acts 2:23
So could the wicked people who crucified Christ, say to Peter, “Well if God determined for Him to be crucified, how you blame those who crucified Him?
I think sometimes we make God to human, instead of the infinite Divine One.
As a Calvinist, for me, there is a mystery to God loving His creation, and yet being sovereign over every thing. God loves His creation. He called Adam good. Yet Adam sinned, and fell. I believe God grieved when Adam disobeyed, and yet knew he would, and so God ordained it as well, but it is Adam’s responsibilty that the universe is cursed.
Have a great Lord’s day Professor Rauser.
ps Lee, you need to apologize I would think. Bad to call someobne a nerd. You need to repent.
Don - apologize? No way, I say if that hat fits… no, I’m kidding, Randal is a good friend, hence the ;-)
That said, I agree, I didn’t think I was proof texting by quoting Rom 9, as you point out with regard to Pharaoh (not to mention Jacob and Esau in v.12) …that certainly seems to be the most natural reading of the passage. In any case, individual or corporate, the question remains… how can a sovereign God find fault in sinners? The answer in essence is not so much an explanation as a searching question in return… who are we to question our Creator (c.f. Job 38).
“hence the ;-)”
Sorry, I missed that.
“who are we to question our Creator (c.f. Job 38).”
There are times we are wrong to question the Lord, and other times it’s alright. Depends on the situation, and context.
Bottom line for me in Romans nine is that God says, “I will show mercy to whom I will.”We don’t grab it from Him, we don’t acquire it, it’s God’s mercy, and He grants it to whom He purposes to.Surely His mercy, when it comes upon a child of wrath, causes the child of wrath to be grateful, to be overwhelmed really with this mercy, and our heart shall cry out to the Lord for mercy and forgiveness, but only because He first had mercy on us. “We love Him, because He first loved us.”
Mr. Challies, let me reiterate one more time (at the risk of beating a dead horse) that when you accuse a fellow author of completely fabricating an account of Calvinism and that author completely rebuts your charges, you really do have a responsibility either to defend your accusations or retract your statements.
I’m a calvinist also, and much like John Piper i am content with the mystery that surrounds human accountability and God’s sovereignty. That however doesn’t mean i don’t think or meditate on it, but again like John Piper i don’t think sticking the word ‘freewill’ in there will solve anything.
Am i about to get rebuked by an Arminian? Probably.
Aside from that, i would indeed like to see Tim Challies stop steamrolling posts out and address existing ones for a second or two. I’ve always trusted Tim’s reviews, and it would be good if i can continue doing that, but if Tim neither backs up his statements or retracts them, it certainly makes it hard to keep taking his word at such value.
Thanks.
Tony,Of course I agree with you and continue to wait for a retraction or rebuttal from Mr. Challies. That said, I would like to point out that neither you nor Mr. Piper should reject free will. The Calvinist position has always been compatibilist as John Calvin pointed out to Pighius: “If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free, and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in the sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection.” Note Calvin’s strong wording: the unqualified denier of free will is a heretic. Calvin recognized that to deny free will is to undermine human responsibility and so he affirmed free will. But at the same time he rejected completely the kind of free will to which an Arminian subscribes (that is, libertarian). So I think you too should accept free will, appropriately defined.
Randal, I highly doubt a retraction or rebuttal will ever be forthcoming from Mr. Challies. In addition to lacking any formal theological training as such, he is speaking from a bully pulpit here on his web page. And hey, that’s fine, more power to him. If I had a web site I’d probably use it to preach my views as well. But since this thread makes it clear that Challies obviously has no actual facts or arguments to support his contention that you are “libellous” in your view of Calvinism (love that word, “libellous”—does Challies think the ghost of Calvin is planning to file a lawsuit against you? LOL) he will probably just ignore you from this point on. Which is his right to do so. Shrug.
Of course, if Calvinism is true, maybe God has predestined Challies to ignore you, heh heh.
Read FINDING GOD IN THE SHACK last night for the first time—superb book, Randal. Well done.
“Read FINDING GOD IN THE SHACK last night for the first time—superb book, Randal. Well done.”
Is finding God in the Shack far better than finding God in the Bible. Seems that it is, or perhaps equal to the Bible.
For me, when I want to know what God is like as my Triune Lord of the universe, I like to read the Bible. I don’t like to think of God my Father as a black woman. Or the Lord Jesus Christ as “Middle Eastern and was dressed like a laborer, complete with tool belt and gloves”, and the Holy Spirit is named Sarayu, “a small, distinctively Asian woman.”
This doesn’t help me understand the God of all creation at all.
Do you think God wants us to think of Him as a black woman named “Papa”?
To me the book, compared to the Bible is nonsense, and could be damaging to ones renewed mind in Christ.
I’m not talking here of people’s experiences. If God has used His grace to see past all the error in this book, and still bring a person closer to Him, well, we’ll just have to wait until Judgement Day to see for sure.
But comparing Paul Young’s, who I heard is an universalist BTW, teaching of who God is with the Scriptures, he would be considered a false teacher to me.
Jesus said pray to God like this: “Our Father, who art in heaven, Hollowed be Your name.”The Father’s name is to kept holy. I fear we don’t fear to do this in our generation as much as we should.God is three people who want to talk to me in a Shack.
I have read many reviews on this book. My own pastor read the book, and reviewed it. Most are very generous to Young, and yet still call him on his false theology.
My heart says, “I just can’t see the bother, when I have the Scriptures, and true pastors and teachers to help me understand the Triune God.”
Randal, I prefer Boettner’s explanation from his book “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination”…
“The true solution of this difficult question respecting the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man, is not to be found in the denial of either, but rather in such a reconciliation as gives full weight to each, yet which assigns a preeminence to the divine sovereignty corresponding to the infinite exaltation of the Creator above the sinful creature. The same God who has ordained all events has ordained human liberty in the midst of these events, and this liberty is as surely fixed as is anything else. Man is no mere automaton or machine. In the Divine plan, which is infinite in variety and complexity which reaches from everlasting to everlasting, and which includes millions of free agents who act and inter-act upon each other, God has ordained that human beings shall keep their liberty under His sovereignty. He has made no attempt to give us a formal explanation of these things, and our limited human knowledge is not able fully to solve the problem. Since the Scripture writers did not hesitate to affirm the absolute sway of God over the thoughts and intents of the heart, they felt no embarrassment in including the acts of free agents within His all-embracing plan.”
Come on Tim. Man up and explain yourself. Mr. Rauser has made some very valid points. It’s easy to hide behind your computer and make accusations. He answered your questions, aren’t you able to answer his?
Donsands, you may not be familiar with the term “straw man fallacy,” so allow me to give a brief definition. A straw man fallacy is when a person completely misrepresents an argument, then attacks that misrepresentation.
When you make comments such as the following, you are engaging in a blatant straw man fallacy:
“For me, when I want to know what God is like as my Triune Lord of the universe, I like to read the Bible. I don’t like to think of God my Father as a black woman. Or the Lord Jesus Christ as “Middle Eastern and was dressed like a laborer, complete with tool belt and gloves”, and the Holy Spirit is named Sarayu, “a small, distinctively Asian woman.”
Do you really think the intention of THE SHACK is to **literally** compare God the Father with a black woman, etc.? It’s an allegory, dude. You must gnash your teeth at night in anger about C.S. Lewis’ Narnia series (“I don’t like to think of my lord Jesus as a lion!”).
Your comment, “To me the book, compared to the Bible is nonsense” is another awkward straw man. Are you really suggesting that *anyone* is holding THE SHACK on an equal footing as the Bible? Please. Frankly, I’m a bit taken aback that you mention your pastor and the Bible in the same sentence—you must hold your pastor in incredibly high regard to suggest the two are on equal footing. I suppose one could ask, “Is finding God in the words of one’s pastor far better than finding God in the Bible?” ;-)
Forgive me for saying so, but if THE SHACK offends you so deeply, maybe your time would in fact be better spent doing something other than participating in a discussion thread about it!
Keep the peace.
Simon Atavax
P.S. Why exactly are you bothered by the depiction of Jesus as “Middle Eastern” and a “laborer”? You, umm, know that he was in fact both of those things, right?
Whoa. I just found something interesting on amazon.com. Apparently Mr. Challies has a book of his own about THE SHACK. http://www.amazon.com/SHACK-Unauthorized-Theological-Critique/dp/1934840491/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236471190&sr=8-2
I have to say that for a man with the broad audience of Mr. Challies to give a scathing review of two books about THE SHACK ***when he himself is selling one of his own*** seems grossly inappropriate to me. At the very least, I would expect a disclaimer of some sort: “In the interest of full disclosure, it should be stated at the outset that I, Tim Challies, am selling MY OWN BOOK about the THE SHACK on amazon.com.” But no such disclosure exists (at least, not that I can see).
For a reviewer to give a scathing review to a book that is competing with a book the reviewer himself is selling is a disgrace. It is the very essence of CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
It certainly sheds new light on the closing lines of Mr. Challie’s scathing review of Mr. Rauser’s book: “I would not recommend either Finding God in The Shack. Neither one deals consistently and biblically with the theology of The Shack. If you absolutely must read one or the other, go with this one; it is a better effort than Olson’s and, at the very least, it shares the gospel message. But with so many books available to us today, I have to think your time could be better spent elsewhere.”
Spent elsewhere, eh? Let me guess, Mr. Challies: reading YOUR book on THE SHACK? Got it.
Atavax (#30, #34, #35),
It’s obvious you’ve been under a rock concerning this site and Tim Challies’ character. You and Tony (#28) and Ethan (#32) are all demanding answers as though Tim is cowering behind his keyboard. Trust me, he’s much more likely spending the day with his wife and children, not monitoring the comments here every hour, on the hour.
And, mysterious Atavax, this site isn’t a “bully pulpit.” Sure, it’s a soapbox like every other blog, but unlike Teddy Roosevelt’s presidential office, about which Teddy coined the phrase, you as the reader have to elect (pardon the pun) to log on. Tim can’t force his Calvinism on you.
Secondly, it’s rich to fault Tim for having no theological training, and then to throw out such a caricature of Calvinism as to call your own understanding of it into question - or your knowledge of Scripture, for that matter.
Thirdly, “libel” hardly applies only to living people. The adjective “libelous” (please note Tim actually wrote “almost libelous”) is not the same in semantic function as the noun “libel.” It’s a descriptor, a modifier.
Fourthly, Rauser seems to have set himself up as judge and jury (with McCall’s help) over whether he has responded adequately to Tim’s arguments. You think he has. I’m not so sure.
Fifthly, in #34 you accuse Don of a straw man fallacy, and then go on to quote Don, who has explained exactly how God is portrayed in the book. That’s not straw man, as Don is not misrepresenting anything, but is simply relaying the original position of the author.
Sixthly, it’s highly debatable whether The Shack is an allegory, dude. In the book, the black woman, Jewish carpenter, and small Asian woman ARE the Trinity. An allegory is an external representation, not the exact same thing as what it is trying to represent. From this point we could argue whether it is respectful or even biblical to represent God as such…
Finally, it’s been common knowledge on this blog for some time that Tim’s review of The Shack is not only offered for free in PDF form on this site. Yes, a publishing company also offers it as a printed and bound edition that people are free to buy on Amazon. Look around Challies.com: you won’t find a single link on this site to buy it on Amazon. It’s not a conflict of interest, and definitely not “the essence of.” Rauser’s book is pro-Shack, Tim’s is anti-Shack. Tim stands to make no financial profit for warning people away from Rauser’s book, or The Shack, or any other. That’s not his motivation, I hope you know. Now who’s engaging in straw man argumentation? What about a review Tim may write that warns people away from a certain book on discernment that he thinks is flawed? Yes, Atavax, he actually wrote one on discernment.
For what it’s worth, Lee’s quiet, humble reiteration of Job 38 is, in my opinion, the correct response to everything being said here. Who are we to question God as to why he has both predestined us and holds us responsible? I put my hand over my mouth.
Rats. I knew I should have previewed my post, but I was getting tired of arguing. Besides the italics issue in the penultimate paragraph, there should also be a correction in the “Finally” paragraph, to read thus:
“Finally, it’s been common knowledge on this blog for some time that Tim’s review of The Shack is offered for free in PDF form on this site.”
Preview, people. Always preview.
“Fifthly, in #34 you accuse Don of a straw man fallacy, and then go on to quote Don, who has explained exactly how God is portrayed in the book. That’s not straw man, as Don is not misrepresenting anything, but is simply relaying the original position of the author. “ -Mark
Thank you Mark.
“Sixthly, it’s highly debatable whether The Shack is an allegory, dude. In the book, the black woman, Jewish carpenter, and small Asian woman ARE the Trinity. ”-Mark
I agree.
And Atavax, I have simply been sharing my heart on how I feel about this book. If someone else says they love the book, that’s fine with me. I think I’m allowed here to share my heart n how i see the book, according to the reviews I have read, and especially my pastor’s reveiw.
Btw, I have all types of persons visit my blog, and comment on my posts, who disagree in a big way with me, and i try to be kind and discuss the subject whtaever it may be. if one becomes nasty, or steps over the line of resepct, then I delete them. Otherwise, I believe God wants us to discuss these things, and perhpas help others see the truth of Christ crucified, or encourage others in the truth, and also protect and warn others of half truths, and false teachers as well.
Mark@DR,
A few thoughts about some of your remarks.
“It’s obvious you’ve been under a rock concerning this site and Tim Challies’ character.”
If by “under a rock” you mean “I had never even heard of Challis or his site until I stumbled across it while surfing the web looking for stuff on THE SHACK the other day”, then yes, I freely and happily admit, I have been under a rock about this site. As most folks who read Challis’ review of THE SHACK probably are when they come across it on Google search.
“It’s rich to fault Tim for having no theological training, and then to throw out such a caricature of Calvinism as to call your own understanding of it into question - or your knowledge of Scripture, for that matter.”
Heh. I never made any claim to any sort of theological training. As a lukewarm Roman Catholic, I would never presume to comment intelligently on theological issues. And my knowledge of Scripture is pretty weak as well. But if you read my posts, you will see that at no point do I even PRESUME to have such knowledge. I do know something about logic and argument, however, and I do know something about integrity. The difference between Challis and myself is that because I have no theological training, I don’t presume to run a theological website.
Your point about theology is an important issue, however. Watch this thread and you will see me carefully avoiding any of the in-depth theological questions. I’ll let the folks here who are qualified to comment on such things do so.
“It’s been common knowledge on this blog for some time that Tim’s review of The Shack is not only offered for free in PDF form on this site. Yes, a publishing company also offers it as a printed and bound edition that people are free to buy on Amazon. Look around Challies.com: you won’t find a single link on this site to buy it on Amazon.”
Whether it is “common knowledge” that Tim has a book for sale on THE SHACK I do not know. But one thing I DO know is that his review of Rauser’s book makes no mention of this fact. Does Challis stand to profit if someone reads his review, decides NOT to buy Rauser’s book, then goes to amazon.com to search for works by Tim Challis? Of course he does.
By the way, let me stress that I don’t believe for a second that Challis is **deliberately** slagging Rauser’s book solely to help his own. But at the same time, it is unprofessional for a reviewer to slag a book (two, really, with Olsen’s as well) when he himself has a book on the same topic for sale at a major web bookseller like amazon. I don’t know much about theology, and I highly doubt I’ll make it into heaven one day, but I at least know something about writing ethics.
“I put my hand over my mouth.”
Me too. (Uh, from this point on, that is. ;-). I apologize if I’ve been unduly snarky. But some very intriguing issues have been raised here and I find the conversation quite fascinating as well as important. Thus my zeal at times may overpower my diplomacy. (Blush) But I’ll refrain from further comment until Mr. Challis gets back to us.
I would ask that the discussion in this thread not descend into the nasty (or rather that it ascend out of the nasty). The fact remains that while Mr. Challies has accused me of an “almost libelous” characterization of Calvinism, the only libel may rest with him. To charge someone, as he has charged me, with a “completely fabricated portrayal of Calvinism” is serious indeed. It impugns my character since fabrication in this context means: “to fake or to forge”, i.e. a deliberate misrepresentation. I have answered Mr. Challies’ charges and shown them to be false. Now it is his responsibility to retract his statements or defend them if he can. But he has a moral (and legal?) obligation not to remain silent.
Hello Mark, are you by any chance Mark Tubbs of Discerning Reader?
This is what i said:
“Aside from that, i would indeed like to see Tim Challies stop steamrolling posts out and address existing ones for a second or two. I’ve always trusted Tim’s reviews, and it would be good if i can continue doing that, but if Tim neither backs up his statements or retracts them, it certainly makes it hard to keep taking his word at such value.”
This is what you said:
Mark@DR: “You and Tony (#28) and Ethan (#32) are all demanding answers as though Tim is cowering behind his keyboard.”
???
Um what? I’m demanding answers as though Tim is cowering behind his keyboard? I think it would be more accurate to say that i was hoping for Tim to address the concerns of his readers in this entry before making a new one the next time he came on to blog.
“Trust me, he’s much more likely spending the day with his wife and children, not monitoring the comments here every hour, on the hour.”
And that’s absolutely fine, awesome and wonderful, but if Tim loves spending the day with his wife and children so much more than his blog and perhaps the readers of his blog, then why not just stop doing it altogether?
Look, i’ve seen Tim interact with his readers in the comments section. If Randal could spare some time to challenge what Tim has written, surely Tim could spare some time to address this? It doesn’t seem like we’re asking Tim to “monitor the comments here very hour, on the hour.”
Tony (#41),
Why, yes I am.
Avatax (#39),
I very much appreciate your post in response to mine. That’s exactly what I meant by “under a rock.” I could have phrased it more clearly and less abrasively, I realize in retrospect.
Also, credit where credit is due for tempering your tone even before Dr. Rauser’s plea for moderation in #40. It’s much more pleasant this way, I think.
I would much rather you visit (and comment on) this blog, in light of how you describe your spiritual condition, than not at all. God be with you!
These are all the statements from my book that Mr. Challies took issue with in his original posting, all part of what he claims to be a complete fabrication of Calvinism:
Calvinists believe that God is perfect in his love, but he chooses not to show this love to all his creatures.
God gives us the desires that we freely fulfill, both good and bad.
Adam and Eve sinned because God gave them the free desires to sin.
Everyone who sins does so because God has formed his or her character to do so.
the only way to have a high appreciation of God’s glory is by seeing God crush human rebellion.
Calvinism is in danger of Manichaeism
the Calvinist claim that God only loves some creatures and hates others
I have defended three of these above. I can readily defend the rest if Mr. Challies is first willing to respond to my posts above. To this point I see no evidence that this self-appointed Calvinist spokesperson has an understanding of Calvinism superior to the average first year MDiv student that enters my classroom.
“Calvinism is in danger of Manichaeism”
You mean from Calvin himself, and all along John Calvins teachings of the Bible have been in danger, or from others like Luther, and all the rest of us Calvinists? I don’t get what you’re saying here?
God created Adam. Adam fell. All humans inherit the curse that God cursed Adam with, since Adam disobeyed the Lord. We sin because we are born in original sin. There’s no hope for mankind, unless God intercedes, which He has no obligation to do. He could leave us, and let us be proud in our sin, and die in our sin, and be judged for our sin.But God…
Do you believe humans are born in sin, and so under God’s curse and wrath Professor Rauser? Just wondering.
I have a dozen questions in my heart, but if you could enlighten me on these two, it would be appreciated. God bless.
Don,I’m not entirely clear on what you’re asking but I’ll venture a response anyway. The standard Calvinist view is that God wills the reprobate to reject him eternally because God’s glory is God’s first goal, and God’s glory is manifested more fully if some creatures rebel than if all willingly serve him. You find this view in Calvin, Edwards, and right up to John Piper. That can lead to Manichaeism for obvious reasons insofar as evil seems to be required to maximize God’s glory. But why doesn’t Mr. Challies get in on the conversation?
“The standard Calvinist view is that God wills the reprobate to reject him eternally because God’s glory is God’s first goal, and God’s glory is manifested more fully if some creatures rebel than if all willingly serve him.” -Randal
Also, the standard Calvinist view is that the Lord has mercy on those whom He purposes to have mercy. God surely doesn’t owe any of us reprobates anything, but rejection, since we want nothing to do with Him, and we all reject Him?
God surely, and righteously, does harden whom He wills, like He did pharoah (Ex. 7:3). And that should make our hearts shutter I would think, but people just shrug it off, but not all some fear, and then cry out to God for mercy. And the Lord is great in mercy, and so pours out His mercy to all whom repent and come to Christ.And yet none will come, unless the Father draws them (John 6:65).
And the great, great mystery is why would the Father ever draw us? There’s none good or righteous, but we are all wicked and children of wrath, no, there’s not one that wants God to draw them to Christ, and to believe and love Jesus.
Thanks Randal. I appreciate your discussing this with me. I can’t speak for Tim.
Three things surprise me about this thread.
- It seems to me that Dr. Randal is overzealous in trying to right a personal offense. I am surprised that this has gotten so far under his skin.
- Trying to resolve the pro-Calvinism / anti-Calvinism conflict amongst friends is very hard. Trying to do it amongst people with turf to protect is nearly impossible. I am surprised such smart guys are having this conversation in this forum.
- I too wish Tim would respond to Dr. Randal’s requests. I am surprised he hasn’t.
Regarding Dr. Randal: I know from personal experience that some battles are worth prodding, and sometimes even provoking, in order to defend what we see as truth or noble and necessary virtues. I can cut him some slack, for I think I know what he is attempting to defend.
Regarding Tim: I know as a pastor that there can be positive reasons to avoid contention, even if it makes you look bad. I am one of those who looks to Tim’s discernment regarding books (I have surely bought enough of them from his recommendations!), and I am willing to cut him some slack for what he chooses to invest his time into.
I think there is some wisdom in letting the issue rest and moving on. Sometimes unresolvable conflicts are a distraction from what men are best at in ministry.
-Steve
Steve begins:
“It seems to me that Dr. Randal is overzealous in trying to right a personal offense. I am surprised that this has gotten so far under his skin.”
In response Steve, I largely ignored Mr. Challies’ first comment about my book. But after he made the second comment I decided to respond more fully. I did so for two reasons: (1) many people apparently take his opinions seriously; (2) no trained theologian would take his opinions seriously. Whether or not this is a “personal offense” is a red herring. The real point is that it is an offense against the truth. I have demonstrated that Mr. Challies is ignorant as to the basic principles of Calvinism and I await his defense of his charges. If you care about truth - and surely if you’re a Christian you do - you will demand it from Mr. Challies just like you would demand it from anyone else. Calvinist? Arminian? Christian? Pagan? In this context that is all neither here nor there. The issue is whether what you are saying is true. I have no “turf” to defend. I am not promoting an “agenda”. I merely ask for reasoned discourse, for evidence in support of slanderous claims.
Steve, you say: “I think there is some wisdom in letting the issue rest and moving on. Sometimes unresolvable conflicts are a distraction from what men are best at in ministry.” Excuse me? What is the wisdom in excusing boldfaced slander? Is that the foundation of pastoral ministry? When will Christians get serious in their pursuit of truth and stop caricaturing and slandering views with which they disagree, whether it be out of ignorance or malice?
Tim will respond if and when he judges it appropriate to do so and/or when he has time. Until then, please show some maturity and stop demanding that he do so. I’ll be deleting any further comments that are nothing more than nagging on that, and closing these comments if necessary. Thank you.
Everyone,
I am going to comment here shortly. My weekend was pretty much booked end-to-end and I just did not have time for it. I have no intention of walking away from this. So please wait patiently.
Tim