The Shack

[mkgal1]

"Papa" claims that Jesus never drew upon His divine power or authority as God.

I didn't catch that in the movie---was it presented that Jesus didn't do anything above what we--as humans-- can do? IOW....the disciples were able to use God's power to heal just as Jesus did. Jesus didn't use His authority to stop the crucifixion (or His beatings--and the effects of the beatings). So....that can be a true assertion. He remained limited by His physical body.

 

[actionsub]

Isn't it said in the Bible that Jesus is "the mediator between God and man"?

True. However, if you lean on that part too heavily, you wind up in a sort of modalism where Jesus is not God in the flesh, but a sort of sub-divine being.

 

[mkgal1]

True. However, if you lean on that part too heavily, you wind up in a sort of modalism where Jesus is not God in the flesh, but a sort of sub-divine being.

Right....but that doesn't discount the mutual submission of the Trinity.

 

[actionsub]

Right....but that doesn't discount the mutual submission of the Trinity.

Precisely, "mutual" being the key word.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Would you, JimmyJimmy, or someone else care to post what you see as the heresies in the film (or even just one)? Thanks.

Have you read the book or watched the film? If you've read the book or seen the film, yet pose this question then no amount of our explaining will help.

 

[mkgal1]

Have you read the book or watched the film? If you've read the book or seen the film, yet pose this question then no amount of our explaining will help.

That's the way to put a stop to discussion I thought that's the purpose of a forum---to share thoughts and ideas (not voice your strong opinion and then abruptly halt any further sharing).

Give it a try. Let's see if any explaining will "help".

 

[mkgal1]

Precisely, "mutual" being the key word.

I agree. One God---one purpose---one united will.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If one thinks he can make God into anything he wishes, like a wax nose, then there is no issue with the Shack; however, if one understands the second commandment as God's law, and that the sinful intent of mankind is to make a god in his own image, then one will easily see how far the Shack is from biblical Christianity, and I would go so far as to say its demonic message.

 

[South Bound]

Have you read the book or watched the film? If you've read the book or seen the film, yet pose this question then no amount of our explaining will help.

As evidenced by his response when I tried to explain it to him.

 

[dysert]

I guess this is one of those things I can't be explained to.

 

[CrystalDragon]

True. However, if you lean on that part too heavily, you wind up in a sort of modalism where Jesus is not God in the flesh, but a sort of sub-divine being.

Thing is, the Trinity wasn't sound doctrine until 300 years after Jesus left.

 

[mkgal1]

↑

....and how do we discern when there are things left to mystery (which is a LOT)?

Southbound's response: "By reading what God has to say about them in His Word"

That was my point. There's a lot of silence on a lot of topics that people have filled in their own beliefs (IOW---we CAN'T use the Bible for support when the Bible is silent--or only slight glimpses-- on some things).

Where are the passages you're using for support of this belief that our Christology better be on point or else we're damned to hell?

 

[South Bound]

Thing is, the Trinity wasn't sound doctrine until 300 years after Jesus left.

Actually, as I corrected you before, the Trinity was always sound doctrine. It just wasn't formally codified until 300 years after Jesus "left".

 

[Resha Caner]

Simply put, it is more accurate to view God as male than as female or a Spirit without gender, because that's how he revealed himself to us.

Succinct & spot on.

I haven't seen the movie, but I did read the book. It was excellent until the 3 faeries showed up, then the whole thing fell apart - as theology, as literature, as therapy.

 

[mkgal1]

Simply put, it is more accurate to view God as male than as female or a Spirit without gender, because that's how he revealed himself to us.

That is ONE of the ways He revealed himself to us. He also revealed to us through nature....through ALL of creation.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."~Romans 1:20

"Heaven is declaring God’s glory;
the sky is proclaiming his handiwork."~Psalm 19:1

"Lord, our Lord, how majestic
is your name throughout the earth!
You made your glory higher than heaven!
From the mouths of nursing babies
you have laid a strong foundation
because of your foes,
in order to stop vengeful enemies.
When I look up at your skies,
at what your fingers made—
the moon and the stars
that you set firmly in place—
what are human beings
that you think about them;
what are human beings
that you pay attention to them?
You’ve made them only slightly less than divine,
crowning them with glory and grandeur.
You’ve let them rule over your handiwork,
putting everything under their feet—
all sheep and all cattle,
the wild animals too,
the birds in the sky,
the fish of the ocean,
everything that travels the pathways of the sea.
Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name throughout the earth!"~Psalm 8

....and there are several female metaphors for God in the Bible. In speaking of God--the ONLY language we have is metaphors.

 

[Resha Caner]

That is ONE of the ways He revealed himself to us. He also reveals us through nature....through ALL of creation.

Be careful. Though God can show himself through creation, he is not creation. They are distinct. To say otherwise is pantheism.

When God parted the Red Sea, he revealed his power. He wasn't saying he was the sea.

 

[mkgal1]

Be careful. Though God can show himself through creation, he is not creation. They are distinct. To say otherwise is pantheism.

When God parted the Red Sea, he revealed his power. He wasn't saying he was the sea.

I never implied God IS creation. The whole original statement was referring to how God reveals himself to us.

But....since you did issue that warning: be careful or what? I believe God allows for us to think things through....get creative....and not just follow a strict and restricted way of thinking. I don't believe I'm going to get zapped by a lightning bolt (but don't read that to mean I have little reverence and awe for God---I do).

 

[Resha Caner]

I never implied God IS creation. The whole original statement was referring to how God reveals himself to us.

But....since you did issue that warning: be careful or what? I believe God allows for us to think things through....get creative....and not just follow a strict and restricted way of thinking. I don't believe I'm going to get zapped by a lightning bolt (but don't read that to mean I have little reverence and awe for God---I do).

Granting creativity does not grant free license. Adhering to the truth of what someone is doesn't restrict creativity.

Is it wrong to say God is creation?

 

[mkgal1]

I wasn't making the point that God = creation.

I get this visual in my head when reading comments like the above--that there are people sitting on the edge of their seats *concerned*-- and even looking for--words that are just a bit out of the norm. I just believe that causes one to miss out on what's being expressed (or even just the enjoyment of conversation with another person). I came from that background (the concern over things being said that weren't "on point" and typically phrased)--it's much better on this side now (and God is so much BIGGER and GREATER and more awe-inspiring).

 

[CrystalDragon]

Be careful. Though God can show himself through creation, he is not creation. They are distinct. To say otherwise is pantheism.

When God parted the Red Sea, he revealed his power. He wasn't saying he was the sea.

If God is omnipresent, doesn't that mean that technically he is in everything?