- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (8/6)
- Next Post »A La Carte (8/7)
Open Mind, Closed Bible
- 08/06/08
- 96
Almost eight months after my review of The Shack I continue to get daily emails about it. This is proof, I suppose, of the book’s continued success. I do not know if the novel’s popularity has peaked yet but can see that it is still at the top of its category on many of the bestseller lists. The emails I receive typically fit into one of two categories: the “thanks for the review” category or the “how dare you?” category. Today I want to address just two of the more common critiques of my critique of the book.
Here is how one reader expressed herself: “Hello Tim. I read your review after I had already read The Shack and I think your review is ridiculous. Your review reminds me of exactly why ‘stodgy old religion’ is so unappealing to masses of people.William Young wrote a novel - a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” Another concerned reader told me of a professor in a conservative seminary who was untroubled by much of the book’s poor theology. “I was surprised that he seemed not as concerned due to the fact that it is a novel and so some leeway should be allowed for ‘poetic license.’ He acknowledged my concerns and said he shared them as well but said the novel did not ‘intend to do theology.’” I have received these comments, or ones like them, time and time again.
There are two broad arguments used here.
The first is pure pragmatism, implying that the book should be judged not on theological arguments, not on the basis of comparing it to Scripture, but on the basis of how people have reacted to it. Because so many people are responding positively to this book in opposition to “stodgy old religion,” we must believe that it is good. “William Young wrote a novel - a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” The danger of such an argument is that it effectively places us over the Bible and over God. No longer do we judge right and wrong by what God says, but we judge right and wrong by how we feel. If the book inspires people to be intimate with God, we must judge it to be good. If it stirs emotions we like, we judge it to be good.
There are profound implications here. Pragmatism necessarily causes us to lose our focus on the absolute standard God has given us in His Word to determine right from wrong. When we lose that focus the church is placed on the slippery slope to becoming like the world. When we discard God’s standards we must depend on our own deeply flawed standards. We begin to trust in ourselves and lose our trust in God. We lose our reliance on His Word as the tool for discernment.
The second argument is that The Shack is not a work of theology and, therefore, must not be treated as such. An article at Christianity Today makes this argument. “It’s tricky to speak definitively of The Shack’s theology. Young could have written a theological treatise, a spiritual memoir, or even a long poem. Instead, he wrote what he calls a “parable” (not an allegory). That should give readers pause about confidently reading off a systematic theology from the book.” And in their review of the book they say, “Readers are talking about The Shack for its theology and its storyline, not for its faulty mechanics. Reviewers have criticized the book for hinting at universalism, as well as for feminism and a lack of hierarchy in the Trinity. Rather than slicing and dicing the novel, looking for proof of theological missteps, a better approach might be to look at significant passages as springboards for deeper discussion. The Shack is a novel, after all, not a systematic theology.”
This is a convenient argument but one we need to guard against. It creates a false, unrealistic division between works that are theological and works that are not. Surely we will admit that there are works that call for great theological precision (such as a Systematic Theology) and works that call for a more general precision, but we cannot neatly divide areas that require correct theology and areas that do not. The Shack is, by the author’s own admission, a work that seeks to change the reader’s perception of God. It is deeply theological! Read the reviews of this book and you will find readers saying how much this book impacted their understanding of God’s person and nature.
Tom Neven, writing for Boundless Line, covers this well in an article titled “But It’s Only Fiction.”
If you’re going to ground your fiction in the real world, then it must conform to the rules of the real world we live in. No unicorns or magic squirrels allowed. Even one of my favorite literary genres, Magical Realism, adheres to certain basic rules.
So if you’re going to have God as a character in your real-world fiction, then you must deal with God as he has revealed himself in Scripture. By using the Trinity as characters in this story set in the real world, The Shack author William P. Young is clearly indicating that he’s supposedly talking about the God of Christianity. But God has said certain things about himself in Scripture, and much of what Young does in this novel contradicts that. I don’t care if he’s trying to make God more “accessible.” He’s violated the rules of fiction.
More important, why does Young feel the need to change the character of God in this story? In a way, he’s saying that the God who reveals himself to us in the Bible is insufficient. Young needs to “improve” the image to make it more palatable. But as I said in the original post, God never changes himself so that we can understand Him better. He changes us so that we can see Him as he truly is. If God changed his nature, He would cease to be God.
The Shack is theological fiction. If it talks about God, it must be so! While it may not require the kind of precision we would expect from a work of formal theology, we cannot deny that the author seeks to teach what he believes to be true about God. And we cannot then deny that it teaches theology that is, in a word, false. It is not an issue of precision but of right and wrong! Fiction is a powerful medium for communicating truth and the evidence of this is in every positive review of the book; the evidence is in the fact that Jesus Himself often communicated using fiction.
The reader who complained about “stodgy old religion” exhorted me to “try to re-read the Shack with a more open mind.” But from her email and the others like it, I can see that in this case an open mind would require a closed Bible. We cannot set aside Scripture even when we read fiction. There is no such thing as only fiction.
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 (96)
“They seem to have open bibles in one hand,’the reformed faith’ outlined in their favourite creed in the other,and a closed mind with which to read the former through the grid of the latter.”
Phil, we all read with presuppostions; whether deeply set, or with little conviction. Yes, I read the Bible through a reformed grid because I believe it to be true, and through that grid I believe I better receive the wonderful mysteries and known truths about God.
I do appreciate the issue of how some people get boxed into a place that seemingly prevents good discussion, but I would say Tim does a great job of allowing discussion to occur. Maybe reformed folk seem especially tight-minded, but I’d say for many it’s for the right motive. We do have our trouble makers, but that doesn’t change whether the view is correct. Oh, and I’ve met many non-reformed folk who are just as grid oriented - it’s just a different grid.
I think that entertainment in any medium has the ability to shape the way people view God. The more emotional a book or a movie causes someone to feel, the more impacting it is on someone’s belief about God. This is especially dangerous when most people are consuming more media than actually studying the scriptures and developing right theology.
Adam Parker / www.compelledbyreality.com
Hi Ron…just to qualify/explain my statement- and I’m sorry if I wongly offended anyone - I guess if someone were to look at my creed, I would be a considered a “calvinist”. But I do think (as a New Covenant “Theologian”) that the creeds etc that have been considered the pinnacle of biblical theology are not where the bible is on the newness of the new covenant. And I find, looking around, that many people are closed to anything other than restating their received epistemologies. Sola scriptura seems to have had its day, and the Berean spirit that characterizes spirit-born humility - to greater or lesser degree - absent. Too, what the the Reformers classically defined “faith” as - having components of understanding, assent, and trust - often seems collapsed to the first two of those three - coupled with a derivative eithic. But I don’t think the new birth delivers us to just function even of good doctrine and an ethic with which (purportedly with God’s help) we are to pro-duce Christ-likeness. I think we are to live out the ex-pression of the indwelling Christ’s life. He is our Life. Our epistemologies may or may not describe the same (they should do), but they are not THE life in-and-of-themselves.
I haven’t read the Shack and I’m not aiming to post here as for againist. I’ve just noted that some people/theologians who I think (as I reform my own thinking and seek to live up to the full reality of new covenant privileges so I can live a powerful, fruitful life to the glory of God and my own enjoyment as a new creation) seem not to be against the book. I mentioned Steve McVey.
Also - while on the surface it may well seem there are some dubious comments from the book - and I’m not saying there aren’t - I think that there seem to be from many refromed brothers, a quickness to judge the author’s intent, and glean this or that false doctrine - some of which he apparently explicity repudiates - others some understanding of some biblical-theological issues (that those such as McVey teach) would inform those that are merely reading through the lenses of their epistemologies. Such as, for example - how man is constituted and how he is designed to function as a “trichotomous” - how the new covenant is pure grace (and as such is the strength of Spirit-expressed holiness) - law and grace don’t mix for sanctification anymore than justification - how the new birth makes as new creations where all things are new - we have one nature, not two (despite remaining sin/fleshliness), and how there is spiritually no seperation between us and Abba Father anymore (though we may misunderstand the full reality of the gospel and construct a phony veil between us). On that point - when I read Tim mentioning in his review that our sins seperate between believers and God - I think that is product of the misunderstanding of the new covenant. They don’t seperate concerning justification (as I know you agree) - but neither in sanctification.
There are basic presuppostions that some (such a Jim Fowler as I mentioned above seek to correct) are incipient in the “Latin West” via Augustine that are perhaps unbiblical. Such as the assumption that given the correct mental response to the correct doctrine etc, man is able to self-generate his righteousness as a copy of God’s - rather than express the living righteousness of the indwelling Christ, joined in one spirit to his spirit - and redemption brings makes him a coperator in such a process. Many reformed people are bringing up “modalism” with respect to the Shack’s presentation of the Trinity. But I understand that theintent is not any such thing - but a “perichoresis” - something that perhaps the reformed tradition has largely yet overlooked(?) and which informs the nature of “submission” etc…
You may be interested in this comment I wrote elsewhere; it’s comment #10 here;
http://lovebrokethru.com/?p=85
Now as I say, while I haven’t read the book, I note from comments etc (and the associations/support of others) some prehaps resonant issues with the book - that may at least help to explain where it is (in general) coming from. And which are worth all of us considering on the biblical-theological level. The question for all of us is - what is the full reality of this new covenant - to the glory of God, our good, and multidinous (genuine) fruit-bearing after the fashion that the post-Pentecost scriptures seem to indicate?
It seems right and natural to mention these things.
Kind Regards,
Phil
Tim,Thanks for your continued stand for the truth which in this case results in a stand against The Shack.
More people should read your book (I enjoyed it by the way) to learn about discernment and make practicing discernment a way of life.
Keep up the good work.
The fact that so many people would want to rely on a work of fiction for their theology rather than the Bible is very sad to me. I believe that this (along with other things I’ve seen) speak to the fact that knowledge is not valued in today’s church—emotion is. This is, in large part, why people respond so positively to “worship” music, and so negatively to preaching.
On another note, for an entertaining time, you should go to youtube and search “My Critique of Tim Challies Critique of the Shack.”
It ceased to be “fiction” when he chose to write on God.
Phil, thinks for taking time to respond as you did. You wrote:
“And I find, looking around, that many people are closed to anything other than restating their received epistemologies. Sola scriptura seems to have had its day, and the Berean spirit that characterizes spirit-born humility - to greater or lesser degree - absent.”
I agree that can be a problem. Calvinism can tend to create an air of superiority, and robotic recitation of its principles. I went through it 12 years ago when shown how it best reflects scriptural truths. I’ve toned it down as time has passed, and am not so quick to disparage different views. I try to show Christ’s love by serving others more and realize that Franklin Graham is as good a model for me to live after as any of my theological heroes. But when theology comes up I am grateful that my mind isn’t adrift with spurious thoughts of God’s sovereignty, and try with love and humilty to correct someones errant thoughts.
So sometimes we need to directly address what is being said about God. I think it’s pretty clear in the case of “The Shack” that the presentation of God could be harmful to people not grounded in the full nature of God as revealed in scripture. The author’s supposed denial of poor doctrine or statements that it’s not a theological work doesn’t matter when it’s being received as another ‘Pilgrim’s Progress”. Tim notes it’s theological fiction thereby advancing a concept of God, and has pointed out enough to tell me it could add to already poor misconceptions about God.
It really is about itching ears, and making sure we don’t become indifferent because we don’t want to offend.
Phil, thinks for taking time to respond as you did. You wrote:
“And I find, looking around, that many people are closed to anything other than restating their received epistemologies. Sola scriptura seems to have had its day, and the Berean spirit that characterizes spirit-born humility - to greater or lesser degree - absent.”
I agree that can be a problem. Calvinism can tend to create an air of superiority, and robotic recitation of its principles. I went through it 12 years ago when shown how it best reflects scriptural truths. I’ve toned it down as time has passed, and am not so quick to disparage different views. I try to show Christ’s love by serving others more and realize that Franklin Graham is as good a model for me to live after as any of my theological heroes. But when theology comes up I am grateful that my mind isn’t adrift with spurious thoughts of God’s sovereignty, and try with love and humilty to correct someones errant thoughts.
So sometimes we need to directly address what is being said about God. I think it’s pretty clear in the case of “The Shack” that the presentation of God could be harmful to people not grounded in the full nature of God as revealed in scripture. The author’s supposed denial of poor doctrine or statements that it’s not a theological work doesn’t matter when it’s being received as another ‘Pilgrim’s Progress”. Tim notes it’s theological fiction thereby advancing a concept of God, and has pointed out enough to tell me it could add to already poor misconceptions about God.
It really is about itching ears, and making sure we don’t become indifferent because we don’t want to offend.
I think Tim points out rightly that The Shack is a work of theological fiction, and as such it is one of the many “alternative” routes people are taking in their attempts to “find” and “know” God today. I believe this book is actually quite harmful. I posted three or four articles on my own blog site dealing with this book after someone sent my wife a copy in the mail. I very much appreciated Tim’s review of it, and was glad to have read this discerning brother’s opinion prior to its arrival.
Those who reject the true gospel of Jesus Christ-the gospel of sin, repentance, and salvation-will look for alternates wherever they can find them. For many who want the warm comfort of salvation (like a cup of hot cocoa) without the excruciating torment required of the sinner (that is *true* repentance), then something of this sort of Christianity-like-lite can be very appealing. But God’s word is very explicit that for those who would prefer delusion to the way of eternal life, God Himself will send them a delusion. It is similar to the way that God hardened Pharoah’s heart after Pharoah repeatedly insisted on hardening it himself against God’s word and His will initially as Moses pleaded for His people.
We live in a time (and perhaps it has always been this way, I don’t know) when people want a quick-fix, an easy solution, and above all something they can feel GOOD about. Whether it is prosperity gospel in its variety of forms, books like this, or any of the myriad man-centered spin-systems out there (Tolle/Winfrey for example), true gospel Christianity is just not real popular. That’s because it does not, will not, has not, and never will elevate man above anything other than utterly depraved and corrupt in sin, and badly (if not blindly) in need of a Savior. Anyone who professes Christ that ever forgets this should question both their sanity and their salvation.
I don’t care how many people claim that this is a life changing book, I *seriously* doubt that is true for any of them boasting this claim on some book’s behalf. I think it is much more likely that someone reading this book would NOT change because they would have the false assurance that God is just so wonderful and loving that they could continue on in whatever messed up manner they might be in when they arrived at The Shack. I doubt anyone has given up a lifelong addiction to drugs, or alcohol, pornography, or any other form of idol-worship or sin as a result of reading this book. I wonder how many people staking that claim actually changed anything at all about their lifestyle besides discussing the book in some conversations and sending free copies to other people they know.
In short, I would be very surprised if ANYONE has made the radical life changes that I have witnessed first-hand in the lives of someone who has experienced a true conversion to Christ. Why is that? Because that kind of change only occurs when a person truly repents of their sin and believes in Christ as their Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit can bring about true and lasting change in a believer’s life, but He only operates in those who believe and accept the real gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I’m sure this will invite some anger among some who have read this book and believe it changed their lives just because it made them feel better about themselves or about their idea of God; that is, a warm and loving God. However, though God is indeed loving He is also just; and is as much a God of wrath as of love. Many are willing to love God for His love as long as they do not have to fear Him for His wrath. But to only accept the love of God as good, and reject the wrath of God-which is also good, actually even perfect-is to misunderstand Him and His plan for salvation altogether. You won’t get it.
If you want to know what God is really like, read the Bible. Not some work of fiction by an author that has put his words into God’s mouth, but the 66 books of Scripture written down by people whom God chose to put His words in theirs. There is a big difference.
Peace & Blessings,Simple Mann
Eugene wrote:In the Christianity Today article that Tim mentioned, it said:
“Readers are talking about The Shack for its theology…”
“The Shack is a novel, after all, not a systematic theology.”
Its interesting that many readers love the book for its so-called ‘clarification’ of some major Christian theologies, but when pressed on the issue of right theology they quickly claim that the book was not meant to be a ‘systematic theology’.
I think this is an excellent point. I have read so many reviews and comments by people who felt like reading The Shack brought them closer to God, revealed His love in a more intimate way, and many even claim that it was “Lifechanging”—a word that really makes me cringe because if anything I believe it made them more comfortable in the state they were already in and *more* resistant to change. Those claims these people are making DO indicate that they are embracing the man-made theology of this book, and that they turn around and defend it claiming that it is a work of fiction (while at the same time holding onto what they felt so moved by in it) should perhaps be the biggest indication and warning that something is amiss! By their own admission they are bringing drawn closer to a fictional god, having greater intimacy, having their lives changed (or more correctly stated, their minds) by a fictional god. It is a delusion!
Defenders of the delusion may call the defenders of the faith too rigid, but it is not hard to see the damage that has been done to Evangelicalism over the past 200 years by a tolerance to the delusions and deceptions that have come against it. The trend of tolerance has led to the demise of sound doctrine as influences that were once rightly identified as heresy or apostasy have gradually over time crept their way into the heart of the witness, poisoning the testimony that we, as believers, are appointed to give.
I pray that there will be a return to sound theology and a right understanding of the doctrines of grace, but it will not be found in books and in teachers who appeal to the wicked hearts of men.
Peace & Blessings,Simple Mann
Is it just me, or do the comments on this post keep getting longer and longer?
“On another note, for an entertaining time, you should go to youtube and search “My Critique of Tim Challies Critique of the Shack.” ”
Wow! Someone has a lot of time to burn. I wish I had time to make a “Critique of the Critique of Tim Challies Critique of “The Shack”“. It could be dismantled in about two minutes.
Ron wrote:
A good reviewer gains trust with his audience and is able to provide information that tells them something is not “worth” reading. I’ve read books Tim has reviewed and I find his critiques inciteful and balanced. And isn’t that the point of reviewing?
Heeheehee… I think you meant insightful, however given the current review and responses inciteful might be more appropriate! ;~P
Peace & Blessings,Simple Mann
@ #61 Dan - Thank you for making me laugh :)
I have a question. For the people who say that this book has changed their lives, how has it changed your life? Really I want to know. Do you find your self spending more time in God’s Word now? Do you spend more time serving others? More time in prayer? I have read several of the 5 star reviews on Amazon and most off them do say “It changed my life” but do not say how. And so I just want to know what the fruit is.
As for it not being theology one Reviewer (M. Nowacki “bocamick”) goes so far as to say “”The Shack” gave me a greater understanding of how God can be the Trinity at the same time. I also gained a greater of understanding of what “God is love” really means.” I guess the Cross is no longer enough for us to understand what “God is love” really means (Romans 5:8)…
“I think you meant insightful”
I guess that’s why there are editors! I think you’re right though, it’s sort of an appropriate error.
@Roger,
I share your skepticism with all the folks claiming that they have “changed lives” after reading this book. I would have to guess that the only thing that has changed is their sense of worth because “God loves me, this I know… for in The Shack, he tells me so…”
My guess is that the “changed minds” of the positive reviewers are actually *less* likely to recognize their own depravity and sin, and hence less likely to seek repentance and truly experience a “changed life”. I think the only thing that has changed is their view of God, but that does nothing to change God’s of them. As Paul Washer likes to say, “If you don’t have a new relationship with your sin, you don’t have a new relationship with God.”
Peace & Blessings,Simple Mann
I have had the week off, and have been becoming reacquainted with “logos”. In response to reading the shack, I googled the wrath of God:Found this on Ravi Zacharias’ website, where Jill Carattini said what I was feeling so much bettter than I could!
“The words of the prophet Nahum are one such place of uneasiness. ‘A jealous and avenging God is the LORD,’ he begins. In the three short chapters of Nahum, our comfort level is taken on a tense ride. The prophet holds up a vivid picture of a God who judges and whose judgment brings death and destruction. His words are strong—yes, ugly; his descriptions are shocking. It is not difficult to see how some find the words of Nahum uncomfortable, perhaps even offensive. We don’t know quite what to do with this God.
In what seems like an ironic twist within this message, the messenger’s very name means “Comfort.” And yet I have no doubt that this is a significant hint. You see, God does not play word games. His words, in fact, contradict our own games.
As Jesus stood before the scribes and Pharisees, a terrified woman cowering between them, he called out in a loud voice, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” The woman had been caught in adultery. The scribes and Pharisees were caught at their own game. Minutes before, they were convinced that had discovered the perfect trap; they were convinced that they could manipulate words to their advantage. At Christ’s response, they were silenced. Their game was contradicted. They dropped their stones and left.
God’s call to judgment and his offer of mercy are not contradictory. But our moral outrage at God, while winking at immorality in our living, is contradictory.
Let us not run from his message because we are uncomfortable. His Word is sharper than a double-edged sword, dividing bone and marrow. Indeed, correction is never comfortable. But as the woman caught in adultery found, the truth is: the One who corrects us is most comforting. ” Author: Jill Carattini
A few short comments:One, it is such a huge deal that everyone should probably read it for him or herself. With discernment. But see #3.Two, it’s one thing to view it as a work of fiction. It’s another to assign it to a whole congregation and use it in small groups. That gives it an authority the author probably never meant it to have.Third, most Christians are not as versed on theology as this group. Reading this book without a strong theological framework may give rise to misconceptions, due to poor writing or poor theology.Fourth, the dialog over the book may be it’s greatest contribution. If what Tim or others say drives you to the Bible to find out for yourself what the truth is, then it has accomplished a lot.
@Dave McGowan,
I think you brought up an excellent point and it is one that, although I failed to mention it myself, is one of the reasons I have developed such a complete distaste for the book. It is being used in churches all over the country for “Bible studies”!
And the “theology” of the book is NOT the theology of the Bible. That to me is the biggest problem. I am reading Michael Horton’s “Made in America” right now, and someone else rightly pointed out, it may take a generation or two before faulty theology really takes root. But given enough time, tolerance, and exposure to the elements, it begins to grow its thorns and to choke out the word. Matthew 13.
Peace & Blessings,Simple Mann
:sigh: Just because the book is declared The New York Times best seller doesn’t mean it really is a work of literary art nor it is filled with authencity.
I cannot give the book a blanket condemnation; nor can I give it a ringing endorsement without making disclaimers. When Young is right, he’s there; when he’s wrong, he’s off.
It is so sad how culturally and religiously illiterate many Americans, Christians and nonChristians alike, are. Why else this book and many books on Atheism are popular? It is not a good sign, since it only comfirms how superficial, imperialistic and intellectually bankcrupt Americian pop culture really is.
“But as I said in the original post, God never changes himself so that we can understand Him better. He changes us so that we can see Him as he truly is. If God changed his nature, He would cease to be God.”
Good words here.
Good to read your thoughts on this book again. The Lord wants us to watch and pray, for Satan is subtly moving about, to devour those he can. That’s for sure. How does he do it? That’s the question we all better take to heart, with every book we read, and every sermon we hear.
The argument juxtaposing fiction and theology, or artistic license and propositional truth, is reminiscent of the classical romanist defense of idolatry. The ‘worship’ of a human image, although strictly forbidden in the second commandment, is justified on the grounds that it works in a mediatorial fashion as a sort of catalyst enabling the soul to transcend the finite and profane to encounter Christ. The means - idolatry - justifies the end - communion with God.John Challies
The thing I love about Reformed theology is that nothing gets a pass. Everything is combed through for the large and the small. The thing I am very uncomfortable with about Reformed theological culture is that it has no Richter Scale. Everything is a ten. The comments on The Shack have feel of “tilting at windmills” to me. This is one of the reasons that people move away. I look at the arguments and can’t help but feel “no big deal.”
Ron, I’ll just bear your comment in mind for the mo. Incidentally, I heard an interview with Paul Young at ptm.org, and, in line with what I was saying in that link I linked to in an earlier post, he mentioned “performance religion” (works sanctification) as of the essence of trying to control God - which I found a quite telling statement of God’s sovereignty (and somewhat ironic - in view of the preponderance of the same among those who epistemologically defend God’s sovereignty most strongly, - with a gospel contra the message of Galatians!). I appreciate your the attitude you wrote with.
What I was really getting at is that New Testament Christianity is all about the Living Truth - it is about the Resurrected Christ as our very life as new creations - insofar as someone “follows” someone else who examples that - that’s good. But nobody can be a model to copy - even if it looks good - if it is not done out of Christ in us, as our very life, but done “for” Christ - it is not of faith and is sin. So the full doctrine of the cross is all-important! I mentioned Steve McVey - you may be interseted in Terry Rayburn at graceforlife.com. He states the creed that he in the main agrees with is the 1646 first London Baptist. I find his teaching of the new covenant great. An he has no agenda but Christ crucified and raised to life for us.
Simple Mann, just a quick comment.You wrote;
“For many who want the warm comfort of salvation (like a cup of hot cocoa) without the excruciating torment required of the sinner (that is true repentance), then something of this sort of Christianity-like-lite can be very appealing”
Re:repentance. What you describe is not evangelical repentance. God requires a repentance - be it never so lacking in “torment”. And God gives what he requires freely on new covenant terms. Receiving a full and free pardon with no works - is the only way to repent. I’d recommend one of my favourites - Spurgeon’s “All of Grace”.
Well, just dipping into this blog. -Best wishes all -Phil
Phil, I heartliy agree that it is all about our Resurrected Christ, and I also think it wise to consider others who live commendable lives, and reflect the characteristics of faith. love and humility. I think the scriptures clearly tell us how important it is to set good examples, and those examples are for others to benefit from, not God. When I see someone showing Christ, it lifts my spirit and spurs me on. I’d never use them as a replacement to model after Christ, but I sure do thank God he gives us such people.
But we do need to be careful, and no man (or man written book) should become our source for righteousness.
What I was meaning was that ‘all that glitters is not gold’. I may heartily approve of this or that doctrine(be it never so good)and all righteousness…but still be attempting (even as a believer)to bring forth my own righteousness,FOR God(with God’s help!). I think that the gospel does more than leave us in the futility of that position-in fact it saves us from it-it gives us the very ontological life of Christ in us to live out ‘as’us(Gal2v20)through a (yet ‘twoness’)spiritual oneness. It is altogether more intimate. It is functioning from the Tree of Life,rather than the Knowledge of Good and Evil-where even the ‘good’is evil. Thus,the gospel- a full and free pardon and the new birth, in which we are joined in one spirit with the risen Christ-partakers of the divine nature-save us from sin - being FIRST a reference problem( right or wrong tree)and then a moral one. It causes us to cease from our own works (in both justification and sanctification)that we might express his. Free from law obligations,we are free to the ‘I wills’of God’s new Covenant. An altogether better prospect!…discernment is essential- but we need to be functioning out of Christ in us for it to be spiritual-because,along with the Apostle Paul, we are not capable in ourselves of knowing anything…well,just thought sharing-I hope to your blessing sir.
Phil,
The “excruciating torment required of the sinner” that I was referring to may be drawn from my own experience, but I do think there is some scriptural support for it. It is the beginning of the process of death and denial of the old self, “this body of death”, and it is completely necessary as I see it in the process of sanctification. Perhaps it is not that way for all, but when God chose to pour His grace over me and placed in me a new spirit—one of repentance in the place of the old one of rebellion—it was excruciating to me. It was excruciating to the old self who loved sin, as well as to the new creation who now hated the old one for loving it so and for hating God. And when I look at the lives of Peter and Paul and see the same kind of torment in their repentance—Paul for his persecution of Christ, and Peter for his denial. The same is true of David, and the countless others who have been broken and laid bare before the Lord. I think it is a
I say “excruciating torment” in direct contrast to the “pleasurable comfort” offered by so many Christian-flavored alternatives that are so popular today—the Jabez, Purpose Driven, “emergent strain”, Best Life Now, “Name it and claim it”, tomorrow’s trend included—that in no way seek to mortify the desires of the flesh and stoke the fire for the Living God. I think there are many, MANY who call themselves Christian, and yet have never come to true repentance, and without this “crying out” and “turning away” from that which our selfish natures have attached our passions, there can be no salvation. Have you ever pried something out of the hand of a baby that she should not have, but that she wants to hold on to with all her might? Even a baby will scream and cry as if in pain when the object of their desire has been taken from them.
I think it is the “pain” of letting go that which we have held onto and put our trust in, put in the place of God that I was trying to allude to.
Peace & Blessings,Simple Mann
Tim,I recently heard of The Shack from Dr. George Grant’s website, http://www.kingsmeadow.com/blogger.html on his July 30 post. My research into this book took me to your review, which I greatly appreciated, and then referred to in a comment on Dr. Grant’s post.
Last night I purchased a copy of your book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment and have begun to read it.
My husband is a pastor of a church in Missouri. He’s been pastoring for nearly 20 years. His call to stand firm to the preaching of the Word of God continues to bless me and makes me very proud of him. We have seen folks through out these past 20 years, waver in their stand on biblical truth. We know of professing Christians who are now denying the Trinity and hell and other biblical doctrines of Christian orthodoxy. It is a bit scary to see apostasy happening with people we once worshipped with. I believe there is a great need for your book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment. That is even obvious from many of the comments I have read here on your site. So, thank you for heeding the call of ministry God has placed upon your life. May He bless you, protect you, and strengthen you to stand firm in it. And like Spurgeon once admonished God’s servants long ago, may you have “a blind eye and a deaf ear” to all those who try to shut you down.
Simple Mann-I’m tediously typing on my phone-having lost a previous attempt-so forgive my brevity/lack of explanation. I know where you’re coming from from personal experience,but any struggles in coming to Christ we had were not requirements but due to our unbelief. God says ‘I’ll give you a full pardon freely-bought without money or price-but we want to offer our repentance-our fleshly reformations-to qualify ourselves for the gift!But receive that way,and God gives repentance in the same act. Re: sanctification-i think reformed theology has fallen here(apart from MLJ?). Please my friend,have a look at McVey’s books ‘grace walk’ and ’ grace rules ‘and Terry Rayburns audio collection. Suffice it to say here that the old man is already dead-we are one nature not two(as trichotomous beings)who have been made righteous in our spirits,to progressively permeate our souls. The body of sin has been circumcised. The new man has been raised to life. The only way to put off the misdeeds of the flesh is-realizing this-allow Christ’s life to mortify them by realizing ourselves to be those spiritually alive from the dead. We must be free from living under law and its demands for life to do that. Such is the birthright of every regenerate child of God-and the only way for him to bear fruit for God.
Phil, do you believe a man can live a life without sin?
No,because the flesh remains with us until glorification and we grow in grace to become in our souls what we are already are in Christ. But I don’t believe that means that a ‘victorious life’ is not supposed to be possible- and should be the norm.
It is funny that the author tries to call his work a “parable” as a defense against critics who dislike its theological elements.
Jesus used parables to teach theology.
Jesus’ parables all resonate with “systematic” theology.
@dwightk - “Jesus used parables to teach theology.” Excellent point.
@Phil - You wrote “any struggles in coming to Christ we had were not requirements but due to our unbelief.” Strange statement, not sure I agree. I have known several people in my life who claimed to be Christians yet who hung more tightly to their favorite sins than to Christ. It was not “unbelief” at work within them, causing them to live as sons of disobedience, but sin.
And I do not find evidence in the scripture that if God elects you for salvation, from that point on life is just a cakewalk (or grace walk) with no more struggles or worries. Adam and Eve did not die an instant physical death when they disobeyed God and ate the fruit of the tree which He commanded them not to eat, but the process of dying had begun and would be final when they took their last breath. When physical death occurs in the body, the result is putrefaction.
Now as best I understand it, we who have been resurrected spiritually in Christ experience a reversal of this process. The process of death with regards to our “old self” (“this body of death”) begins with regeneration. Repentance is the first fruit. It is spiritually akin to the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In the process of tasting and digesting the fruit of repentance, we recognize that we are completely sinful and depraved, unrighteous, and undeserving—and that God alone is holy and just. It is where we begin to see our sickness and our need for a physician. Indeed, Jesus said that he had come for the sick… to save sinners. So the process of dying for the old man begins that is finalized with our last breath. The work that takes place between the moment of our conversion and the moment of our physical death is called sanctification. Upon our death, when our physical body experiences putrefaction (decomposition), our soul experiences glorification in Christ (a completed composition). We are not glorified at the moment of our conversion, nor are we completely free of the struggle taking place within us.
I think the confusion (as best as I can tell) for McVey appears to be a mixing of “legalism” with “obedience” and “discipline”. These do not at all have the same meaning, and while Paul decries the legalistic attitude of the Judaizers (especially with regards to the Galatians), he (and the other New Testament writers) continually urge their fellow Christ-followers to discipline themselves, be obedient, abstain from fleshly lusts that wage war against the soul, suffer hardship, endure trials and tribulations, persevere, run (and finish) the race, fight the good fight, compete like athletes, be like a hardworking farmer, put on the full armor of God, and stand firm.
Since it would have taken way too much space to paste all the scripture references I found referencing these things, here is a list of scriptures that you can look up for yourself:
Romans 5:1-5Ephesians 6:10-131 Timothy 1:18-191 Timothy 4:7-111 Timothy 6:1-61 Timothy 6:122 Timothy 1:72 Timothy 2:1-62 Timothy 2:152 Timothy 3:10-132 Timothy 3:16-172 Timothy 4:3-8Acts 20:18-241 Peter 1:13-161 Peter 1:22-231 Peter 2:11-122 Peter 1:5-8
This is not an exhaustive list. I’m sure there are many more references in the gospels and other epistles that I didn’t take the time to look through, but I would hope this is sufficient to at least consider that there may be some merit to what the Apostles were teaching. And just as Paul taught in the first epistle to the Corinthians, if discipline and obedience are not carried out in the spirit of love, they are worthless. But discipline and obedience are not evil things that need to be avoided. When one understands rightly what our merciful God has done in raising us spiritually dead sinners to life and pouring out His wrath on His own Son in our place, it should cause us to want to be obedient, to want to discipline ourselves for godliness.
If you have ever seen a child that becomes enamored with a sport or even perhaps a coach, you have no doubt seen them practicing and practicing to try and get better. It’s not because they are “legalistic”. If that were the case, they would be honing their skills to be a better umpire or referee. No, it’s because they want to be better players and it’s because the *love* playing. The same could be said for musicians, writers, artists, preachers, engineers, architects, etc. People who have a genuine love for something they are doing, naturally want to develop, grow, and realize their full potential in whatever pursuit or endeavor they love.
It is this same spirit that works in the regenerate believer who approaches discipline and obedience—not as necessary to be acceptable to God, for only the sacrifice of Jesus and His blood applied to our account can make us acceptable to God—but because we desire to show our love and appreciation to Him. We long to please Him and want to equip ourselves to do whatever work He has for us to do.
But to return to my original statement and my primary concern—I fear that most people (even people who profess Christ) never really reach that point. And the reason being that you cannot fully grasp the beauty and magnificence of the work Christ has done for you as long as you hold on to your sin, refusing to repent and justifying your own self before God instead of allowing the blood of the Lamb to justify you to Him. Sadly, I think this is the state many “Christian” enter into and never leave, and you are correct in your supposition that in this state any acts of obedience or discipline are done to attempt to justify themselves or to clear their own conscience, but not as a result of their overflowing love for God.
Peace & Blessings,Simple Mann
Must be pithy,once more typing on phone. McVey’s arguing ‘the obedience of faith’,over that of ‘works’answering law as demand. Unbelief has always the root sin from which all else flows. It’s not just one sin among many. Again,as per Spurgeon’s all of grace, I was contrasting a works repentance from a gospel one. The only way to be severed from you’re sins is in receiving a full and free pardon,right where you are. If we were saved at all,we received Christ and all his blessings without input ( or fulfilled behaviour conditions)on our part…sanctificationly works exactly the same way. Of course we discipline ourselves,and strive-but where the legalist falls down is that he has lost the full reality of the gospel that enables him to do this. Having begun in the Spirit,he’s entered into a ‘manly cooperation with God’to perfect himself. All he can do that way is multiply unbelief and sin-because law is the strength of sin. Romans 6 is telling us the old man is dead. He was crucified at the cross. The new heart that every person gets at new birth is not an improved heart-but a new one. If,as Lloyd-Jones said,we don’t see that-then we condemn ourselves to living out of the flesh to kill an old man who’s already dead,and to put off (with the flesh!)the misdeeds of the flesh. That’s fighting the wrong battle. It’s futile and aggravates the sin-problem…lastly,no cake-walk-just the troubles shift from being largely self-created to sharing in Christ’s sufferings.
Without meaning to aggravate you,it’s because of these things,that,many reformed have a scheme as you described-a gradual infusing of grace to gradually improve an old nature,’bumping up’our own righteousness in conformity to God’s law,until it’s complete. Now,give or take some difference in means for the administration of that grace-that is the Semi-Pelagianism of Roman Catholicism-albeit just concerning ‘living the life’or ‘sanctification’,rather than justification as well. But I don’t think such a law-grace marriage for sanctification is any more congruent than for justification-‘works sanctification’is not consistent with eternal justification without works.(This pattern for sanctification-within Augustinian paradigms for the constitution of man and his intended dichotomous functionality-I linked to some of my thoughts on that in an earlier post-is probably the reason that Augustine is ‘claimed’by both reformed protestants and some Roman Catholics)…also,just so I can give a bit of context,and show you that I’m not a fair weather sailor on a cake-walk-these thoughts of mine are born out of the crucible of ill-health(M.E.)and much Bunyan-esque struggle. I’m yet a weak person,not experientially grasping what I’m writing about very well-but finding them in the new covenant scriptures as I discover my paucity without them-and am returned to the joyous simplicity we have in Christ that I had when I first experienced something of his matchless grace.
@Phil - I would be interested to know which Lloyd-Jones work you are referring to. I appreciate the discourse; you are not causing aggravation, even if I disagree. I appreciate you taking the time to share these things with someone who does not see them exactly as you do. Concerning Romans 6, while early on it sounds like our death to sin is final, clearly by what Paul says afterward, it is not.
Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. Rom 6:7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. Rom 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
Paul says we must “consider ourselves dead to sin”, and then urges us not to let it reign in our mortal body (how could it do that it if we were truly dead to it?):Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Rom 6:13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.
In the midst of this chapter, Paul also speaks about the necessity of obedience, even while the believer resides not under the law but under grace:
Rom 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. Rom 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, Rom 6:18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Then he goes on to speak of that the “fruit” (which is the result of a process, and is not instantaneous) that will either result from sin or from righteousness:
Rom 6:19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. Rom 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Rom 6:21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. Rom 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And if that death Paul spoke about early on in Romans 6 were an “instantaneous and final death” of the old sin nature, how do we reconcile with what Paul then writes in Romans 7?
Rom 7:13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. Rom 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Rom 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. Rom 7:17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Or, how do we make sense of James warning as he writes to his fellow believers in his epistle:
Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
Here James warns his brothers to be on their guard, to be watchful—warning them what happens when even the believer gives in to temptation. This reminds me of Paul’s exhortation in 2 Corinthians 10:
2Co 10:2 I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking according to the flesh. 2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 2Co 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 2Co 10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 2Co 10:6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
Again, we see Paul speaking of the war we wage, of obedience, and what is clearly an ongoing process in this life. But to return to Romans and expand on this let’s look at Romans 8:
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. Rom 8:6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
There is an excellent book by Puritan author John Owen called the Mortification of Sin and he really expounds on this last verse. I also think John Stott in his book, The Message of Romans, discusses the viewpoint you mention and some other proponents who have suggested that align with Steve McVey’s perspective—that essentially the believer is dead to sin, or stated another way, completely insensitive to it. The problem, as Stott points out, is that history, the lives of other Christians, and our own experiences, all testify against this. He warns how that road can lead to deception, so as a brother in Christ, I would just like to suggest that you maybe check that information out and consider it.
Peace & BlessingsIn Christ, our Lord,Simple Mann
Thank you, Simple Mann, for your consideration of me. I’m at a computer right now, rather than a phone…but I’m afraid my head is pretty scattered. I need to clarify myself for you, because I reckon we’re talking past each other, perhaps. We can use the same terms and the same verese, can’t we, and still understand them in a different context? I’ll try and explain myself more clearly. Please bear in mind that I know where you’re coming from, having had that understanding myself - Here’s why I think I was wrong. First off, here’s a quote from Lloyd-Jones that McVey quotes in his book “Grace Walk”. It’s from “Romans:the New Man”, 1972);
This is, to me, one of the most comforting and assuring and glorious aspects of our faith. We are never called to crucify our old man. Why? Becuase it has already happened - the old man was crucified with Christ on the cross. Nowhere does the Scripture call upon you to crucify your old man; nowhere does the Scripture tell you to get rid of the old man, for the obvious reason that he has already gone. Not to realize this is to allow the devil to fool you and to delude you. What you and I are called upon to do is to cease to live as if we are still in Adam. Understand that the ‘old man’ is not there. The only way to stop living as if he were still there is to realize that he is not there. That is the New Testament method of teaching sanctification. The whole trouble with us, says the New Testament, is that we do not realize what we are, that we still go on thinking we are the old man, and go on trying to do things to the old man. That has been done; the old man was crucified with Christ. He is non-existent, he is no longer there. If you are a Christian, the man that you were in Adam has gone out of existence; he has no reality at all; you are in Christ.”
I’ll try and explain that which Loyd_jones (and McVey) are getting at, and how we are to make sense of all the verses you gave - within a different context concerning the basic suppositions we take to the text.
As I understand it, up to the end of Romans 5, Paul has described that the righteousness of God we receive by faith is a gift of grace. We are justified and in God’s unconditional favour through faith. So Paul next addresses an obvious objection - isn’t that then a licence for sin? We can do what we want so that grace may abound! But here I think we tend to go wrong. Rather than viewing Paul’s answer on why “grace with no law” is not a licence - but is actually the strength of right living or fruit bearing to God - we tend to make it a discussion on why we should be motivated - by grace - to “obey the law with God’s help”. That is, we end up marrying law and grace, or faith and works for sanctification.
Now I think this totally destroys Paul’s argument and rescinds on the truth of the gospel. Paul defends 100% grace as no licence by turning it around completely and making an apologetic for why grace is in fact, the opposite - the very strength of our ability to bear fruit for God. Sin shall not have dominion over us BECAUSE we are not under law, but under grace (no qualifications). It’s crucial to his argument that we realize that statement is meant to be unqualified. Scary thought to us natural legalists! Now the way that he expounds grace as this strength and the only way of new covenant life - is as defence of the new heart. He wants us to know that something instant and fundamental to our very being as new creations in Christ, where all things are new (2Cor5v17) has occured - that we need to “reckon” on as real - that becomes the basis of living by the Spirit - rather than a system of law - to bring forth fruit to God in “a new and living way”- the new covenant way.
At this point let me say that McVey and others are not countenencing disobedience - but revealing Paul’s gospel teaching that shows us what the “obedience of faith” (as opposed to that “of law” - answering commands as demand in the (what should be clear by the blood of Christ - Heb 10) conscience. The question they are answering with Paul’s teaching is “what truth do I need to appropriate about law,grace, new creation vs old creation) etc to illuminate the reality of my union with Christ, so that I can live to God? Every new creation is involved on mortifying the “misdeeds of the flesh” - but how does the mortification take place?
Now contrary what I understand is Owen’s view (we are “under the law as a rule of demand in the conscience”)- I’m saying that doesn’t work.It rund counter what Paul’s trying to teach. In fact, it means I’m condemned to put off the misdeeds of the flesh and kill one of my two natures - with the flesh - by a (wrong) self-effort - a self-effort that the message of Galatians condemns as part of the procedure of “having begun in the Spirit [no works to procure any of God’s love,favour or blessing], are you now made perfect by the flesh? [seeking God’s blessing on you self-effort in sanctification to procure the end that you desire] (Gal3v3).
Now I’ve been finding the futility of this way of trying to obey God. It’s saying that God gives the Spirit to help us to keep the law. That’s not true. God gives us the Spirit by our dying to the law in Christ at the cross - so that - free form law obligations - we may, by him, live out the indwelling life of Christ in “new and living way”. As we rest from our works (having entered into his rest) we bear his fruit to God - a fruit that flows out of our nature as new creations in union with our Beloved. That is, the reality of the gospel has its own dynamic (or “obligation”) - and it is of grace and love. Contra Owen(?), what I’m saying is that the only way to mortify the misdeeds of the flesh that remains with us, is by the indwelling life of Christ. Mortification only proceeds by vivification - as we live in the relaity if the old man already dead. I’ll come back to “the old man” if my brain holds up…
I’ve found an ability to bear fruit for God by striving (“with God’s help”!) to “do the law”. I’ve found a few things - one I am never perfect, but want to be - so I must feel miserable (even if “consoled”). Two, as Lloyd-Jones discusses in his book on Romans 7 - my efforts (aside from properly understanding what I am as a new creation form Rom 6) to do the law aggravate the problem. It’s not just true for unbelievers - but believers too. I put the command as demand on the conscience - and immediately I must lose the sense of guiltlessness that I should be conscious of on account of my justification) and the command itself presents the opportunity for the flesh to 1) attempt to “do” it to “please God”, and 2) so that it may inflame the power of indwelling to brake that same command. Law is indeed the strength of sin, not holiness…I wrote a paper on the identity of the Romans 7 man being an unbeliever (somewhat similar to Lloyd-Jones) - I don’t think I was right on that point anymore - I now think it is - for the sake of elucidating these issues of law/grace/the new covenant/new creation - a believer who is living as if law was the strength of holiness - but a lot remains unchanged.
But I know where you’re coming form on Rom 6 - and I think the clincher that really helps is a biblical anthropology. I used to know that the bible never teaches that a person has two natures - but often felt like I did. But when (recently) I changed my mind about the “spirit” and “soul” being strict synonyms - it helped. You said;
“Paul says we must “consider ourselves dead to sin”, and then urges us not to let it reign in our mortal body (how could it do that it if we were truly dead to it?)”.
I’m not saying that the flesh doesn’t remain and we don’t have the capacity to sin - quite the reverse! - but I am saying that that is in spite of our new natures, and that I think we should be able to live out of them victoriously. There’s a positivity about Paul’s directions to present ourselves as slaves to righteousness in Rom6 that the healthy believer view of Romans 7 runs up against.
What Paul’s saying in Rom 6 about the new heart - is that you are complete in Christ (spiritually speaking) as a new creation where all things are new. Appropriate these things then, and become in deed what you are! Yes, that’s progressive, and not instantaneous - but it works only within the context of our present “completeness in Christ”.
It’s on this point that the anthropology bit comes in. Of you or I look at our minds, emotions, wills (our souls) - and our deeds - the’re mixed, aren’t they? Naturally, if I think the soul is the basis of my “nature”, then I have two natures! But I think that’s wrong. Even of they’re not ontologically separate, the NT does seem to make a functional distinction between the human “spirit” and the “soul”(e.g. 1The5v23(if I remembered that right) and Heb4v12. Now it’s the spirit which determines our nature and our identity before God. Are we “sinful” or “righteous”, “sinners” or “saints”. We find the NT(contrary much teaching)consistently refering to believers as “righteous” and “saints” - rather than “wretched sinners saved by grace”.
So here’s what I think is correct concerning the new heart and the new creation. It is not just so much a changed life as it is a new one, sanctification not a gradual improvement of the old heart but a new heart out of which to progressively live (such that it gradually permeates the soul and we increasingly visage the glory of Christ.) We had a spirit dead in sins and trespasses, and fleshly patterns of living (basic to which is a living out of our own resources) developed as we went through life unregenerate. But when God saved us, he forgave us all our sins - and he gave us a new heart. He made us new creations. He took out the old spirit, dead in sins and trespasses - energized by Satan - and he gave us a new and perfect spirit. Christ then joined his spirit to our ours, and thus “righteousness” was now true of us - at the basic level of our odentity as new creations. This is our “nature”. Living the life is a “being transformed by the renewing of our minds” according to these truths (and their ramifications) so that we live out the indwelling Christ’s life, as we choose to “walk in the Spirit”. As Paul says in Gal2v20 - he has [past tense] been crucified with Christ, and he no longer lives. But he does life a Life - that of the indwelling Christ who alone can live his life - as he walks by a faith informed about these things. What was crucified here is Paul’s “old man” or “old nature” - that that comprised him as a man with a spirit “dead in sins and trespasses”.
The flesh remains, though (it is not part of out new nature). Those patterns of illegitimate self-ism that we developed while we were unregenerate. They trouble and the strength of remaining sin causes us to “walk in the flesh” (though we are not “in the flesh”) because we have a new nature. Sin now works in our members by Satan (now external to us and unable to function in our spirits) externall tempting us to act out of the flesh - and his main aim is to get us to misunderstand the nature of ourselves as new creations, issues of law/grace etc concerning living the life etc, so that the power of sin may be inflamed in us and we walk defeated. But we are now in Christ (which is more than just a bare forensic declaration) - it means he is in us - and we are to choose to walk in the Spirit - with a faith informed by these things, to progressively fulfill all righteousness, by bearing the fruit of the Spirit - to love a la 1Cor13 - by living out the expression of Christ’s own life in, as and through us. We are constituted new vessels containing this treasure - with whom we are in union - not essentailly - there’s always a “twoness”to the relationship in that respect - but there is a functional oness in our spirits joined in one to the indwelling Lord’s - out of which we learn to live as the expresser of his life….concernig James’ view of temptation then - I think it fits well with my view that they are solicited externally - Satan goes fishing in our legitimate desires for their sinful expression according to the patterns that he developed in us while we were unregenerate - while we were “in the flesh” - solely defined by such illegitimate self-ism as was the expression of our dead spirits - spiritually deriving from him. Satan goes fishing in our remaining “fleshliness”(which resides in our souls - not our spirits) and out of which nothing good can come. We are to live then, as those where this flesh is as-if alien to us as new creations - not that we deny responsibility for our own actions at all - but realize that when we sin, we are not sinning from our new nature, but against it - contrary to it. So we are encouraged that we are not trying to put off something that is “us” - our very nature - but somehting contrary to it. We are not trying to “kill the old man”- but, as Lloyd-Jones said, live out of the fact that he’s already dead. I think’s what Paul meant when he said in Rom 7(can’t remember the verse) “so then, it’s no longer I who does it, but sin that indwells me.” He’s not disavowing responsibility for his own actions, but telling us that they are (because he is born again) not flowing from his new identity in Christ - not flowing from his spirit - but contrary to that, from his “flesh”. And I’m sure that he’s telling us that there is a victory from that whole bondage (as the testimony of the new covenant scriptures indicate - and I think he does at the end of chapter 7) by properly understanding grace (with no admixture of law) as the strength of holiness, and the nature of the Christ life in us as new creations. Yes there is a battle (and the enemies of the world, the flesh and the devil are stronger than we know) but we are not therefore condemned to live as defeated. If we walk in the Spirit, we won’t fill up (pattern of life) the misdeeds of the flesh. And we will enjoy spiritual things and more and more see all things through a spiritual lense - in spite of circumstance. As Terry Rayburn’s site “graceforlife.com” says - the gospel didn’t end with salvation. Grace is for living, not just starting the life.
Wow, that took ages!
I made a lot of mistakes above,but the most glaring one is where -concerning law -I said I have an ability,and meant ‘no’ability. Though I guess that’s clear from the sense.
I should just clarify-all that I said happened at the new birth means that we are dead to sin/old creation crucified…but also alive to God/new creation raised to life,with Christ as our very life…when before new birth,we were alive to sin,and dead to God.
just wanted to break up the comments with a short one ;)
In all honesty, after reading lots and skimming some … I think that it’s not so hard to determine why people are so offended when The Shack is “attacked”. When I have been drawn into a story and emotionally affected; when I have thought long and (what I think is) deeply about something; when I am reading a work in which I barely come up for air because it has caught me and kept me - if someone were to tell me how valueless it is, I am likely to feel defensive about it.
Now, that doesn’t answer anyone’s theological questions about the book. It doesn’t tell you if I’ve read it or not. Nor am I saying that a lot of people were downright mean in this set of comments (although some certainly were ridiculous). I’m sure it’s happened plenty elsewhere when Christians are unchristian about being Christian.
My guess is, when something must be said, sometimes it has to be strongly and sometimes gently. That’s up to the Holy Spirit truly speaking through us. I’m not saying we should back off because it bothers people. I’m not offering an excuse. Merely a reason. There is no excuse for not listening to sound teaching (if it be sound teaching) … but there might be a reason. It could be hurtful to hear that what you’ve grasped and loved may be innaccurate.
just thinking out loud
I think Phil and Simple Mann should exchange phone numbers…
Brooke, thanks for thinking out loud.
Apologies Tim, Seth and all, for the length. I just wanted to be thorough for the benefit of Simple Mann and anyone else who was interested in what I was saying. ;)
Brooke, I hear you. I think this book has impacted many people, especially christians who may have gone through some deep and confusing trials. I think what is powerful in this story is the characterization of the Holy Spirit figure and all the nurturing.
Also, the compassion when the main figure has gone through a gut wrenching, years-exacting-a-huge-toll type of trauma. So many people relate to that. So many people who have questioned their faith in God, their belief in Him being in control and allowing such trauma, grief, betrayal, persecution etc.
This book is meant to address how God feels about intense and perhaps what appears to be senseless suffering. And the resultant bitterness that can accumulate when we “shut down” with too many questions.
That being said, I do not like the book and do not recommend it. The compassionate “picture” of the Holy Spirit, the weak “picture” of Jesus and the obtuse picture of the Father do not gel with what amount of light I believe God reveals to the seeking saint searching for His character in the Scriptures.
So I am glad people are writing and asking questions.
Yet you make a good point, and that is, that many have been deeply impacted. Perhaps their faith in God’s warmth has been restored, perhaps their ideas of how He MIGHT resolve a senseless tragedy in the heart of an individual saint have been explored. Perhaps …perhaps…they started thinking God was nice, when their pain caused them doubt of His goodness.
That is why I think it is popular.
I agree with you Simple Mann, we need to read all 66 books in a focused way, praying, seeking and with diligence. We need to open our hearts to a God we don’t always understand even if He allows great tragedies to come in like a flood. We need to weigh all things with biblical truth. Doctrine is important.
That is why I don’t recommend it.
For what it’s worth, even though I have renounced an overreliance on humanistic psychological theory for understanding human behavior, I do think there is such a thing as “projection”, that is, taking our own human ideas, out of our experience, bypassing Scriptural revelation, and we “project” these beliefs onto others, especially God.
That is what I “sensed” when I read this book. It seemed like a story of projection, written by one who has tried to make sense of suffering and the many people who’ve perhaps turned away from relationship with God due to confusion and pain.
Anytime there is error that is being “lapped up” by the masses, I think there are other sources/forces at work also. But things are popular because they “speak” to people’s experiences.
Ann, have you listened to any interviews with the author on what the book’s about? You may be interested to look at ptm.org for a clue (?)to the book’s theology. Wayne Jacobsen- one of the publishers - works with those chaps. They are for distinguishing “Christian Religion” from genuine New Testament Christianity. As to the peculiars of that - well, that needs to be interacted with on that level.
Re: All 66 books of the bible. I’d like to clarify myself here for anyone who has read my comments above. We need to properly understand the new covenant. That is where we’re at, that is the purpose and work that all of history and God’s plan of redemption is centred on. If we don’t get it at all, we’re not saved, if we only get it partially, we can’t live as we are meant to.
I’m all for reading all 66 books of the bible. The point isn’t how big is my bible, though, but how does it fit together? How do I read it right? If I have a system (conscious or otherwise)that is based on unbiblical suppositions, then I’ll tend to read it through that lens. And we were all born dead in sins and trespasses - and the flesh still remains with us - so it’s not like our natural suppositions are going to automatically be the right one’s. Otherwise, there would be no need for our being transformed by the renewing of our minds.
I don’t want to be inflammatory, but I’m sure Covenant Theology as a system doesn’t do “how does the bible fit together” right. It reads the New Covenant into the Old, and then the Old into the New - limiting the full reality of the New and misunderstanding the Old, in degree. Dispensationalism doesn’t do it right, either. It divides the Old from the New, and, seeking a literal future fulfilment of the Old, misses the fact that the New is the fulfilment of the Old, limiting it - as well as misunderstanding the Old.
They both (as systems) fail to properly grasp the grace of the gospel - CT tends brings in law as a “rule of life” - having begun in the Spirit, we’re now to be made perfect by the flesh. We can’t live out the full reality of being “new creations”. Dispensationalism fails to understand how that grace brings fruit. It misunderstands the new heart form a different angle.
Obviously, I’m talking abouit the systems, not necessarily the heart experience of the believers involved. But if our understanding of the faith is hindered by these things, then we are bound to run into problems.
The NT makes it clear that revelation is progressive, God’s plan has been progressive - thus the unity of the bible is not a “mathematical one” - but a “redemptive-historical” one. Paul tells us that the mystery of the gospel had been hidden in ages prior to the new covenant era (Col1v26) - the mystery which is “Christ in you, the hope of glory”(v27). So we need to understand what that means from the NT revelation; and then, following the pattern of the NT writer’s handling of the OT - a redemptive-historical one - read the Old through the eyes of the new in that fashion. We start with what it is to be “in Christ” - see that as God’s goal in redemptive history concerning us - and then read things “Christocentrically”. That way - following the bible’s own hermeneutic - without any extra-biblical suppositions to massage it; whether that by Covenant Theology’s redemption/covenant of works/grace schema”, or Dispensationalism’s unconnected dispensations - we’ll properly understand the New which we are in (as well as the historical Old - which we’ll begin to read today, for our benefit, with unveiled eyes).
John Reisinger’s book “Abraham’s Four Seeds” is worth reading concerning the presuppositions of the theological “systems”.
Well, just proffering some things I think are very important - but fear not, I will not flood this thread further ;) unless of course it prompts any discussion and I feel so inclined ;)
Does the Shack parallel the Wizard of Oz, or is it just me?In the book, Aunti Em and Uncle ?? are experiencing their own sadness, living way below poverty level with Em’s sister’s daughter to support, when disaster strikes (head injury included). Then, the parable unfolds with three friends showing the way*, and a vision of the emerald city ahead, complete with a pastor, oops, I mean wizard, (who is just smoke and mirrors, not a trustworthy sort)…Forgive the run on….*The lion, the scarecrow and the tin man represented real people…The Shack’s author said that it was a parable, and though the story was not real, it was true, like when Jesus told parables. But, I think the design of the story itself follow’s the Wizard of Oz closely.