Mark Driscoll

But Southern Baptists have also banned "high quality reference books." On my shelves I have two versions of Vol. 1, Broadman Commentary, because they removed the original one. And then there was Ralph Elliott's "Message of Genesis." We seem to want to "protect" people from thinking.

 

If I remember right wasn't Elliot's book on Genesis a literal approach to the Genesis account of creation and the heavens. For example the earth on pillars?

 

By no means. Elliott showed that one did not have to discard scientific knowledge in order to read Genesis. He gathered the insights of higher criticism into a form that was accessible to Baptist laypeople who had never been exposed to anything other than a literal reading.

 

And there you go. Though "higher criticism" has been completely discredited in recent years, Smith here makes an argument about why the money you place in the offering plate should be used to promote a Gospel corrupted with Darwinism in the name of free thinking.

 

Freedom, you said:

I think you prediction has already come true.

Then you said:

If this "work of fiction" isn't theological, then why do you predict it to have such a profound effect? Does the book not teach something about the author's perception of god?

 

Mistaken at several points:

1. Higher criticism has not been discredited. Yes, there are new variations, all the way to the minimalists who think that almost nothing in the Bible is authentically historical. But the discipline of digging out sources and identifying them is still with us, and is not theological at all. It is a methodology for literary study.

2. Higher criticism had nothing to do with Darwinism. Yes, there may be a Hegelian background that is common to both, but the one is a literary methodology and the other a scientific observation.

3. I made no arguments; I said nothing about offering plates; and I did not espouse free-thinking, at least as that term is commonly applied. I made an observation rather than an argument, and the Elliott book was published by Broadman Press, which is not supported from offerings, but from sales. As for free-thinking, what I said and still say is that the pursuit of truth is of value in its own right, and that the marketplace of ideas should be permitted to operate. People do not need to be protected; they can be taught and encouraged to think for themselves.

 

I agree. However, since so many are not reading the Bible apparently, or not taking it seriously, reading books with error continues. In fact, the concern over such books in the church seems to be decreasing.

 

I thought Higher Criticism was largely based on anti-supernatural views of those who were trying to use science (or what they thought was science in the 1800s and early 1900s) to explain the miracles and supernatural events in the Bible. They certainly denied the supernatural basis of such events.

 

What do you find heretical about the book?

 

So you read the last part of the book in which God is portrayed as a male, correct? In reality, He is neither male nor female. This work of fiction portrays Him as both. You argue that He is male. I think that's a theological error.

 

That's because you don't read your Bible. Anyone knows God refers to himself as a male. "Our Father", for instance.

 

I think you know little to nothing about the Bible. :BangHead:

 

A methodology based on a naturalistic assumption.

Higher criticism owes a great debt of gratitude to Darwin. Higher criticism rode into educational institutions on his coattails.

Where bookstores are operated from Sunday school boards or the like, one's offering is promoting the sale and distribution of the literature.

It's not about protecting certain people, it's about how one's resources are used for the glory of Christ.

 

Yes.

I never said God is male. I said God clearly wants us to think of Him in masculine terms. He is called "Father" for one thing by Jesus. He is referred to in masculine terms.

God does not appear as anything we may imagine Him. In fact, God does not take on human form, and certainly not as a woman.

http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_TheShack.html

 

Did you learn anything from "The Pilgrim's Progress?" That book was fiction too. The author of "The Shack" definitely has a theological perspective but the book can be interpreted in different ways. In fact, a pastor friend of mine and I had a difference of opinion. He argued that the book supported universalism and I said it didn't. A difference of opinion. On the book's web site, www.TheShackBook.com, one of the moderators said that was not the intent of the book and that several sections alluding to universalism that were in the original draft were taken out because the author didn't believe in it.

The reason I like the book is because it emphasizes the importance of a daily relationship with Jesus, an abiding in Him.

 

Where to begin. I'm not going to make this too drawn out. Most people around in our churches (and around here) probably haven't thought about the Trinitarian implications which the author is presenting. (Of course most people in our churches...and the other place...have thought too much about the Trinity either.)

He presents a modalistic view of the Trinity that the Scriptures disavow and the early church saw (rightly) as a clear corruption of the divine Triad.

Now I get that it is a "work of fiction" but I think we, as Christians, are called to a higher mark even in our fiction.

I do have a supreme problem with presenting the persons of the God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as coporeal beings. Neither of them are corporeal, they have no physical form. The Imago Dei is not a physical representation of God but a spiritual image.

I am glad the work has helped connect some who otherwise wouldn't think about God as approachable. Yet I think we need to strive for better, more Scripturally/theologicall authentic works.

oh, and I am thankful for your voice here:thumbs:

 

The Shack: Helpful or Heretical?

A Critical Review by Norman L. Geisler and Bill Roach


Problem One: A Rejection of Traditional Christianity

Problem Two: Experience Trumps Revelation

Problem Three: The Rejection of Sola Scriptura

Problem Four: An Unbiblical View of the Nature and Triunity of God

Problem Five: An Unbiblical View of Punishing Sin

Problem Six: A False View of the Incarnation

Problem Seven: A Wrong View of the Way of Salvation

Problem Eight: A Heretical View of the Father Suffering

Problem Nine: A Denial of Hierarchy in the Godhead

Problem Ten: Ignoring the Crucial Role of the Church in Edifying Believers

Problem Eleven: An Inclusivistic View of Who Will be Saved

Problem Twelve: A Wrong View of Faith and Reason

Problem Thirteen: It Eliminates Knowledge of God

Problem Fourteen: It Entails Divine Deception

Full Critique Found Here

 

The book is a work of fiction. Is it ever really clear that the events in the shack actually happened? Could it have been a dream or a direct revelation from God? Perhaps. In fact, Mack didn't spend the week end in the shack. His wife said that the accident occurred on Friday night.

 

These resolutions are nonsensical. The SBC should focus on getting local churches to be more missional.

Why not get our churches to feed the poor? Why not get our local churches to do something about nations where thousands die daily from malaria, a preventable disease?

Driscoll is the least of our problems.

Still I'm a Southern Baptist!