MOVED TO NEW HOST

I have now moved my blog to a new host at www.andyrobinson.org.uk

Bible Commentaries

I am often asked about bible commentaries or bible study notes. So I have decided to create a page of the commentaries that I use or have used. I will update it as an ongoing project as and when I come across others.

Dr Wayne Grudem’s Suggested Book List

 

Basic List of Books for a Pastor’s Library

Dr Wayne Grudem … An amazing bible scholar and theologian. His fantastic book “Systematic theology” is a must have reference book for any Christian who wants to understand more of the bible.

A few years ago I was at a conference where Dr Grudem was speaking and I had the pleasure of having dinner with him. As I had just come on staff at Kings Church Horsham we discussed the type of books I should have in my then, nonexistent, reference library. Dr Grudem suggested this list, although a little old now, as I think it was not new at that point either, I would recommend you take a look at it to see if there are any you could/should add to your library.

It really helped me as I wondered which commentary’s to Greek lexicon I should get and I trust It will help you to

Dr Wayne Grudem's Suggested Book List

 

Basic List of Books for a Pastor’s Library

Dr Wayne Grudem … An amazing bible scholar and theologian. His fantastic book “Systematic theology” is a must have reference book for any Christian who wants to understand more of the bible.

A few years ago I was at a conference where Dr Grudem was speaking and I had the pleasure of having dinner with him. As I had just come on staff at Kings Church Horsham we discussed the type of books I should have in my then, nonexistent, reference library. Dr Grudem suggested this list, although a little old now, as I think it was not new at that point either, I would recommend you take a look at it to see if there are any you could/should add to your library.

It really helped me as I wondered which commentary’s to Greek lexicon I should get and I trust It will help you to

Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry Reading List

Bethel School or Supernatural – Year 1 Reading List

I thought that as i came across the reading list for YEAR 1 at the Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry reading list I would make it available for those of us who can’t actually get out there. At least we can read the books!

Bethel School or Supernatural – Year 1 Reading List

Part 4 – What’s Wrong with The Shack

Read The Previous Articles

Read Part 1
Read Part 2 
Read Part 3 

The Shack – Part 4

This is my final write up on the shack and concludes all that I am wanting to convey regarding this book. I have had much feed back, some I can publish and have done so. Having read the book I think that there are many good aspects of it. It tackles some very difficult issues very well, it has, as I have outlined it has some major doctrinal errors in my opinion there are other areas that I believe that could easy be taken wrongly, but if you look hard enough you can see the deeper meaning if you look for it. For example it is very easy to read The Shack with a critical eye, looking for error, and believe that it is saying that everyone is forgiven.

(Page 192) Papa: “Honey, you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world”. Mack: “the whole world? You mean those that believe in you, right?” Papa: ” The whole world Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way”.

It might appear that Papa (God) is saying that everyone is forgiven, but I am not convinced that is what is being said. God is saying that everything that needed to be done on his part to reconcile us to himself is done in Jesus. That is true! It then takes us, the sinner, to do our part and believe, repent and follow him. He has made away, our part is to take the opportunity offered to us!

I am keen not to go on a witch hunt here, but to simply name the theological errors that I saw as I read the book. I have not re-read the book looking for more errors in order to condemn it or the author. My goal was to simply review the book and determine if there was a basis for me being able to recommend the book or not. My answer is not. That Said, if you want to read it … then read it, but read it knowing that it is not theologically sound throughout.

So in concluding this next section of the book casued me to take a look at my electronic bibles to do a search and the results brought a smile to my face !

Just for Fun!

Papa: “My words are alive and dynamic-full of life and possibility; yours are dead, full of law and fear and judgment.  That is why you won’t find the word responsibility in the Scriptures. “

English Standard Version:            1 Occurrence

New King James Version:             5 Occurrences

New International Version:         13 Occurrences

New American Standard Bible:     4 Occurrences

The Message:                              26 Occurrences

King James Version:                       0 Occurrences

Clearly God only reads the King James Version !

 

Part 4 – What's Wrong with The Shack

Read The Previous Articles

Read Part 1
Read Part 2 
Read Part 3 

The Shack – Part 4

This is my final write up on the shack and concludes all that I am wanting to convey regarding this book. I have had much feed back, some I can publish and have done so. Having read the book I think that there are many good aspects of it. It tackles some very difficult issues very well, it has, as I have outlined it has some major doctrinal errors in my opinion there are other areas that I believe that could easy be taken wrongly, but if you look hard enough you can see the deeper meaning if you look for it. For example it is very easy to read The Shack with a critical eye, looking for error, and believe that it is saying that everyone is forgiven.

(Page 192) Papa: “Honey, you asked me what Jesus accomplished on the cross; so now listen to me carefully: through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world”. Mack: “the whole world? You mean those that believe in you, right?” Papa: ” The whole world Mack. All I am telling you is that reconciliation is a two way street, and I have done my part, totally, completely, finally. It is not the nature of love to force a relationship but it is the nature of love to open the way”.

It might appear that Papa (God) is saying that everyone is forgiven, but I am not convinced that is what is being said. God is saying that everything that needed to be done on his part to reconcile us to himself is done in Jesus. That is true! It then takes us, the sinner, to do our part and believe, repent and follow him. He has made away, our part is to take the opportunity offered to us!

I am keen not to go on a witch hunt here, but to simply name the theological errors that I saw as I read the book. I have not re-read the book looking for more errors in order to condemn it or the author. My goal was to simply review the book and determine if there was a basis for me being able to recommend the book or not. My answer is not. That Said, if you want to read it … then read it, but read it knowing that it is not theologically sound throughout.

So in concluding this next section of the book casued me to take a look at my electronic bibles to do a search and the results brought a smile to my face !

Just for Fun!

Papa: “My words are alive and dynamic-full of life and possibility; yours are dead, full of law and fear and judgment.  That is why you won’t find the word responsibility in the Scriptures. “

English Standard Version:            1 Occurrence

New King James Version:             5 Occurrences

New International Version:         13 Occurrences

New American Standard Bible:     4 Occurrences

The Message:                              26 Occurrences

King James Version:                       0 Occurrences

Clearly God only reads the King James Version !

 

Part 3 – What’s Wrong with the Shack

Read The Previous Articales

Read Part 1 The Trinity
Read Part 2 The Trinity

The Shack – Part 3

This is the third part of my thoughts on some of the theological difficulties I have struggled with in being asked to recommend The Shack, particularly to my youth group. In short I thought the book as a whole was really enjoyable but it through up some serious “Red Flags” in my understanding of biblical theology.

Headship, Hierarchy and Order

This is a huge area of possible error and one that needs careful discussion. It all begins with a section of text on page 121 where Mack says “Isn’t one of you more the boss than the other two? … I have always thought of God the father as sort of being the boss and Jesus as the one following orders, you know, being obedient … I am talking about who’s in charge. Don’t you have a chain of command?” Although simplistic these are reasonable questions and statements about the relationships in the trinity. The answers the Shack then provides are, in my opinion, disturbing and wrong.

There are some very weighty topics here! However, they must be looked are carefully and not “glossed over” because they are too complicated.

Order in Trinity – Creation

There is clearly a difference between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in how they relate to creation. Equal yes, but different. As we read the bible we see these differences. Right from the beginning we see that the Father was the one who planned and directed creation. God the Father spoke the creative words throughout Genesis 1 “And God said …” but we know that in the gospel of John that Jesus is referred to as ‘The Word’ of God. “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” [John 1:14] As we read in verse 1 of John “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” [John 1:1-3]. So here we see that Jesus is God and is eternal as the father is, but Jesus was the one who carried out these creative instructions. “All things were created through him (Jesus) and for him (Jesus)” [Col 1:16] nowhere in scripture does do we find any evidence of the Son or the Holy Spirit creating through the Father. The father is the originator and the Son is the doer of his will.

Order in Trinity – Redemption

Here too, in the redemption, we see that Jesus was “sent” by God the Father and Jesus “obeyed” the Father. It was God the father that sent his only Son to the world because of his great love for the world [John 3:16, Gal 4:4], but the Father clearly sent the Son. The plan to redeem mankind was, like creation, God the Fathers idea [Ephesians 1:7-10]. Jesus submitted himself to the will of the father [John 6:38] and obeyed him. “and being found in human form, he [Jesus] humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” [Philippians 2:8]. Obedience is interesting terminology here. This is the same word used in this verse: “Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him[God] aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt” [Acts 7:39]. Stephen recounts the refusal of the people of Israel to obey God that is to do what God had asked them to do. The only other verse in the New Testament where they same Greek word is used for obey is the one in Philippians 2:8 which refers to Jesus being obedient to God the Father. Clearly this tells us there is some ordering of activities within the trinity.

Careful of our own error!

We need to be careful that in arguing for order in the trinity (Economy of the Trinity) we do not imply that Jesus, or indeed the Holy Spirit is anything other than equal within the trinity. “The Shack” does say this and in challenging the issues of order we must not portray Jesus (Or Holy Spirit) as subordinate in anyway. They are equal in nature, being and attributes.

Whilst we are saying that the trinity are equal in nature, being and attributes we are not saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirits roles are interchangeable. The Father, as we have discussed is the one who sends, designs, commands etc and the Son is one who obeys, goes as the Father sends and revealing the father to us. As you look at the roles it is wholly appropriate that the Father is one who commands and plans and the Son in one who obeys and goes. Wayne Grudem says this in his book – Systematic Theology “These roles could not have been reversed or the Father would cease to be the Father and the Son would have ceased to be the Son.”. He goes on to say “These relationships are eternal, not something that occurred only in time”. The Son did not become the Son when the father sent him to the earth as a man. He was always the Son!. The bible tells us that as Christians we were chosen by God the Father in God the Son before the foundation of the world [Ephesians 1:3-4]. This leads us to understand see again these clear roles of the trinity are ordered in eternity past, present & future

“It may be said that there are no differences in deity, attributes or essential nature between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God and has all the attributes of God. The only distinctions between the members of the trinity are in the ways they relate to each other and to the rest of creation. In those relationships they carry out roles that are appropriate to each person” (Grudem, April 1994)

Headship & Hierarchy

Sarayu (Holy Spirit): “Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity” We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command … what you are seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us”.

Whilst we say that the trinity are equal in nature, being and attributes and that there is no subordination there is an issue of headship. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:3 the following “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” You can argue over terminology but there is clearly a sense of “overship” if you don’t like the word hierarchy.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (New International Version)

27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Jesus will be made subject to God is a statement of what I am calling “overship” but it is certainly not a “Circle of relationship” as described in The Shack. It is in fact Hierarchy!

The Greek word for “will be subjected” is ‘hupotagasetai’ which is the future passive indicative. This means that it is a future event where Jesus will forever be subjected to the Father.These passages teach that there is indeed a hierarchy within the Trinity in which all three members are equal in nature, yet the principle of headship and submission is perfectly displayed in the Trinity. [Patrick Zukeran Research Associate, Probe Ministries]

But, page 124 of The Shack we read, “So you think that God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do.  But we do not.” This is directly opposing the bible.

There is a clearly a sense of one being over another, but not is a master/slave sense that we see when we talk of being over someone, but being originator of the move and the one caring out the move. A good example of this might be an inventor of a product and that salesman who sells the produce. Both essential, without the inventor there is no product, but without the salesman there is no way anyone would ether know there was a product or get hold of it. Both are essential, they are inextricably linked and equally. Headship is similar. The bible talks of the church being like a body [1 Cor 12:12-31], every part essential but we can’t all be the hands or the eye or the head. However, all the parts are necessary and without the heart for example the body will die, but it is the head who plans and creates and the rest of the body makes it happen. This is true in the trinity as we have already discussed. God the Father plans and speaks and Jesus and Holy Spirit are involved in making it happen, all equal but in that special relationship of headship and hierarchy.

Mack: “but every human institution I can think of , from political to business, even down to marriage, is governed by this kind of thinking (hierarchy)  It is the web of social fabric”. Papa: “Such a waste”. Jesus: “Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes law and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you”.

The Shack here argues that Gods biblical plan for marriage is incorrect because it is based on headship/hierarchy. The bible has clearly set up marriage as a wonderful expression of intimate relationship (a very dim reflection of the trinity – “the two shall become one [Mark 8:10]”) and explains as we have already discussed that the man is the head of the woman [1 Corinthians 11:3].This is not a negative, or a substandard situation but one that God has planned and instituted. It is one based on the same understanding of authority and headship that we have already established is operating within the trinity.

Sarayu (Holy Spirit): “When you choose independence over relationship, you became a danger to each other. Others became objects to be manipulated or managed for your own happiness. Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want”. Jesus: “If you have truly learned to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own, there would be no need for hierarchy”.

The bible clearly teaches headship in the context of the trinity and so clearly it is possible to operate in a way that is distinct and still not be manipulative or overbearing. The Shack is suggesting that Jesus is saying that being in authority over someone or something (a wife or even a church) is mutually exclusive to being able to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own. This is just what sin and the devil has done headship and biblical authority. These things are not inherently evil in themselves only in the way they have been abused!

 

 

Part 3 – What's Wrong with the Shack

Read The Previous Articales

Read Part 1 The Trinity
Read Part 2 The Trinity

The Shack – Part 3

This is the third part of my thoughts on some of the theological difficulties I have struggled with in being asked to recommend The Shack, particularly to my youth group. In short I thought the book as a whole was really enjoyable but it through up some serious “Red Flags” in my understanding of biblical theology.

Headship, Hierarchy and Order

This is a huge area of possible error and one that needs careful discussion. It all begins with a section of text on page 121 where Mack says “Isn’t one of you more the boss than the other two? … I have always thought of God the father as sort of being the boss and Jesus as the one following orders, you know, being obedient … I am talking about who’s in charge. Don’t you have a chain of command?” Although simplistic these are reasonable questions and statements about the relationships in the trinity. The answers the Shack then provides are, in my opinion, disturbing and wrong.

There are some very weighty topics here! However, they must be looked are carefully and not “glossed over” because they are too complicated.

Order in Trinity – Creation

There is clearly a difference between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in how they relate to creation. Equal yes, but different. As we read the bible we see these differences. Right from the beginning we see that the Father was the one who planned and directed creation. God the Father spoke the creative words throughout Genesis 1 “And God said …” but we know that in the gospel of John that Jesus is referred to as ‘The Word’ of God. “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” [John 1:14] As we read in verse 1 of John “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” [John 1:1-3]. So here we see that Jesus is God and is eternal as the father is, but Jesus was the one who carried out these creative instructions. “All things were created through him (Jesus) and for him (Jesus)” [Col 1:16] nowhere in scripture does do we find any evidence of the Son or the Holy Spirit creating through the Father. The father is the originator and the Son is the doer of his will.

Order in Trinity – Redemption

Here too, in the redemption, we see that Jesus was “sent” by God the Father and Jesus “obeyed” the Father. It was God the father that sent his only Son to the world because of his great love for the world [John 3:16, Gal 4:4], but the Father clearly sent the Son. The plan to redeem mankind was, like creation, God the Fathers idea [Ephesians 1:7-10]. Jesus submitted himself to the will of the father [John 6:38] and obeyed him. “and being found in human form, he [Jesus] humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” [Philippians 2:8]. Obedience is interesting terminology here. This is the same word used in this verse: “Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him[God] aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt” [Acts 7:39]. Stephen recounts the refusal of the people of Israel to obey God that is to do what God had asked them to do. The only other verse in the New Testament where they same Greek word is used for obey is the one in Philippians 2:8 which refers to Jesus being obedient to God the Father. Clearly this tells us there is some ordering of activities within the trinity.

Careful of our own error!

We need to be careful that in arguing for order in the trinity (Economy of the Trinity) we do not imply that Jesus, or indeed the Holy Spirit is anything other than equal within the trinity. “The Shack” does say this and in challenging the issues of order we must not portray Jesus (Or Holy Spirit) as subordinate in anyway. They are equal in nature, being and attributes.

Whilst we are saying that the trinity are equal in nature, being and attributes we are not saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirits roles are interchangeable. The Father, as we have discussed is the one who sends, designs, commands etc and the Son is one who obeys, goes as the Father sends and revealing the father to us. As you look at the roles it is wholly appropriate that the Father is one who commands and plans and the Son in one who obeys and goes. Wayne Grudem says this in his book – Systematic Theology “These roles could not have been reversed or the Father would cease to be the Father and the Son would have ceased to be the Son.”. He goes on to say “These relationships are eternal, not something that occurred only in time”. The Son did not become the Son when the father sent him to the earth as a man. He was always the Son!. The bible tells us that as Christians we were chosen by God the Father in God the Son before the foundation of the world [Ephesians 1:3-4]. This leads us to understand see again these clear roles of the trinity are ordered in eternity past, present & future

“It may be said that there are no differences in deity, attributes or essential nature between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God and has all the attributes of God. The only distinctions between the members of the trinity are in the ways they relate to each other and to the rest of creation. In those relationships they carry out roles that are appropriate to each person” (Grudem, April 1994)

Headship & Hierarchy

Sarayu (Holy Spirit): “Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity” We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command … what you are seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us”.

Whilst we say that the trinity are equal in nature, being and attributes and that there is no subordination there is an issue of headship. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:3 the following “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” You can argue over terminology but there is clearly a sense of “overship” if you don’t like the word hierarchy.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (New International Version)

27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Jesus will be made subject to God is a statement of what I am calling “overship” but it is certainly not a “Circle of relationship” as described in The Shack. It is in fact Hierarchy!

The Greek word for “will be subjected” is ‘hupotagasetai’ which is the future passive indicative. This means that it is a future event where Jesus will forever be subjected to the Father.These passages teach that there is indeed a hierarchy within the Trinity in which all three members are equal in nature, yet the principle of headship and submission is perfectly displayed in the Trinity. [Patrick Zukeran Research Associate, Probe Ministries]

But, page 124 of The Shack we read, “So you think that God must relate inside a hierarchy like you do.  But we do not.” This is directly opposing the bible.

There is a clearly a sense of one being over another, but not is a master/slave sense that we see when we talk of being over someone, but being originator of the move and the one caring out the move. A good example of this might be an inventor of a product and that salesman who sells the produce. Both essential, without the inventor there is no product, but without the salesman there is no way anyone would ether know there was a product or get hold of it. Both are essential, they are inextricably linked and equally. Headship is similar. The bible talks of the church being like a body [1 Cor 12:12-31], every part essential but we can’t all be the hands or the eye or the head. However, all the parts are necessary and without the heart for example the body will die, but it is the head who plans and creates and the rest of the body makes it happen. This is true in the trinity as we have already discussed. God the Father plans and speaks and Jesus and Holy Spirit are involved in making it happen, all equal but in that special relationship of headship and hierarchy.

Mack: “but every human institution I can think of , from political to business, even down to marriage, is governed by this kind of thinking (hierarchy)  It is the web of social fabric”. Papa: “Such a waste”. Jesus: “Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it. You rarely see or experience relationship apart from power. Hierarchy imposes law and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you”.

The Shack here argues that Gods biblical plan for marriage is incorrect because it is based on headship/hierarchy. The bible has clearly set up marriage as a wonderful expression of intimate relationship (a very dim reflection of the trinity – “the two shall become one [Mark 8:10]”) and explains as we have already discussed that the man is the head of the woman [1 Corinthians 11:3].This is not a negative, or a substandard situation but one that God has planned and instituted. It is one based on the same understanding of authority and headship that we have already established is operating within the trinity.

Sarayu (Holy Spirit): “When you choose independence over relationship, you became a danger to each other. Others became objects to be manipulated or managed for your own happiness. Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want”. Jesus: “If you have truly learned to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own, there would be no need for hierarchy”.

The bible clearly teaches headship in the context of the trinity and so clearly it is possible to operate in a way that is distinct and still not be manipulative or overbearing. The Shack is suggesting that Jesus is saying that being in authority over someone or something (a wife or even a church) is mutually exclusive to being able to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own. This is just what sin and the devil has done headship and biblical authority. These things are not inherently evil in themselves only in the way they have been abused!

 

 

Part 2 – What’s Wrong with the Shack

Read The Previous Articles

Read Part 1 The Trinity 

The Shack – Part 2

This is the second part of my thoughts on some of the theological difficulties I have struggled with in being asked to recommend The Shack, particularly to my youth group. In short I thought the book as a whole was really enjoyable. It tackled some pretty hard core topics such as the trinity, why do bad things happen, death, crime and forgiveness in the form of a story. That said could a recommend this book to people? Well to be honest not without some serious caveats. Would I tell people not to read it? No, I don’t think I would assuming they were a discerning reader able to enjoy the book as a literary piece and not a theological piece. It is for that reason that I would not recommend it to youth because they are not always that discerning and will, i think, read The Shack and then think they understand the Trinity or God as a result and they really won’t, not from this book anyway.

What’s all the fuss about?

Well last time in Part 1I spoke of my concerns with the way the trinity is depicted in terms of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Part 2 continues with the Trinity, but this time looks at Modalism and how, I think, it appears within The Shack

Modalism

Possibly here your first question is “What is Modalism”. Well the simplest way to explain it to say that Modalism states that God is either God the father, or God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. He is not all 3 at once; he appears in one mode or another as a single person. So in the Old Testament he appears a God the Father, then in the Gospels as God the Son and then in the remainder of the New Testament as God the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. It is this subtle doctrine that comes out in the Shack and so contradicts the trinity that the book is desperately trying to explain. The book says on page 99 the following:- “We we three spoke ourselves into existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in the created universe we now became flesh and blood”

This clearly shows the Modalism in the authors understanding. Again on pages 95-96 we see this Modalistic doctrine surfacing further.

God the Father was not crucified with Jesus

Page 95-96 of the Shack tells of a conversation between Mack and God (Papa). Mack notices scars on Papa’s wrists and Papa explains that on the cross “we were together”. When Mack rightly challenges this and asks “At the cross? Now, wait, I thought you left him – you know – ‘My God, My God why have you forsaken me?” Papa then replies “You misunderstand the mystery there. Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him”

This is a huge error! For 3 reasons

1. God is spirit and has no flesh or bones as I have already explained in Part 1 and therefore has no wrists either.
2. It speaks of Modalism in that God was Jesus at this point and thus experienced the crucifixion. This speaks of the consecutive modes of Modalism, not the simultaneous nature of biblical trinity.
3. It suggests that Jesus was in error as he believed that God had turned away from him (forsaken him). Either Jesus knew that God had not forsaken him and thus he was lying or he was lying when he said “For I do not speak of my own accord, but the father who sent me commanded me what to day and how to say it” [John 12:49]. Jesus clearly said “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” [Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34]) which leaves us to conclude that Jesus was a liar or God really did forsake him and leave him. Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Jesus was without sin and so could not have lied. This leaves us with the fact that God was not with Jesus on the cross and therefore clearly shows The Shack to be in error on this point.

 

PART 3 Coming Soon ……