|
Posts: 117
Joined: July 2025
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,348
Posts56,543
Members992
| |
Most Online2,383
Jan 12th, 2026
|
|
|
#39744
Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:00 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48
Needs to get a Life
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48 |
As some of you might be aware, one of the hottest selling books in North America is The Shack. I have read this book myself because I thought it would be in my best interest to be informed and not rely on hear say. Anyway, I have also read a few critiques by Reformed writers such as Tim Challies, who I believe for the most part does a fair and accurate account of critiquing the book. Something however, that seems to stand out from both supporters of the book and non-supporters of the book, is that the Trinity of the book is not the same Trinity that I believe the Scriptures talk about. Something I have found quite strange however has come to my attention and that is that I have yet despite my vast search for it, to find a negative review of the book coming from a non-Reformed Christian. I have even read the claim that only Reformed Christians would have a problem with the Trinity that is portrayed in the book. For instance as shown here, I recently listened to a positive critique done by a theologian that is in the SBC that said he believes that the book was accurate in its display of the Trinity and said that Tim Challies negative critique is because the Reformed understanding of the Trinity is different than non-Reformed Christians understanding. So my question is with that in mind, do we as Reformed believers have a different understanding of the Trinity than non-Reformed believers? If that is the case, it would SEEM that our differences are much greater than just Arminianism vs. Calvinism, but we in fact have entirely different religions and we as Reformed believers have as much in common with non-Reformed as we do with JWs. By the way, just in case anyone is wondering why I even read The Shack, it is because many of the people lately who I have been around at work and in my Church have either read the book or brought the book up in conversation to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48
Needs to get a Life
|
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48 |
I would have hoped that I would have got some feed back about this issue.
I am not so much talking about the book 'The Shack’; I am talking about the Trinity itself.
Do we as Reformed believers have a different understanding of the Trinity than non-Reformed believers?
I have tried to find out the answer to this question on more than just this particular board and so far I have not been able to find an answer. Yet this surprises me, since it is such an essential part of Christianity.
Just a little bit of back ground that might help, some of the people who are supporters of the book 'The Shack', say that only Reformed believers have a problem with the Trinity presented in 'The Shack'. This seems to be because most seem to favor the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, than the Reformed understanding of the Trinity. They also mention names such a Barth as correct in his understanding of the Trinity.
Something else that might help is in the book The Shack, when God appears (I have a problem with the Trinity appearing to anyone, but that is another matter) to Matt (the main character) all three member of the Trinity appear with scars on their hands. This is something that Challies and Mohler key on as false Gospel.
A particular SBC theologian who critiques Challies on this, said that if all three members of the Trinity don't have scars on their hands, then it necessarily takes away from God's oneness and makes it "Tri-theism". (I have to admit that I don't understand his point)
Any thoughts on this issue might prove to be helpful.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
Journeyman
|
|
Journeyman
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70 |
Tom said:
A particular SBC theologian who critiques Challies on this, said that if all three members of the Trinity don't have scars on their hands, then it necessarily takes away from God's oneness and makes it "Tri-theism". (I have to admit that I don't understand his point) Perhaps he means that Father, Son and Spirit suffered and 'became sin'; that if one suffered, all must have suffered, if God is to be one, with one 'experience'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48
Needs to get a Life
|
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48 |
Does that mean that all three members of the Trinity had nails driven through their hands and died and rose again on the third day?
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
Addict
|
|
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710 |
Tom said:
Does that mean that all three members of the Trinity had nails driven through their hands and died and rose again on the third day?
Tom Do we as Reformed believers have a different understanding of the Trinity than non-Reformed believers? We certainly have a different understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in regards to regeneration. Tom, I'm sure that you are aware but the sake of others the link to the review of "The Shack" you provided is by a man who is- bold print his own words. #1 "not a 5-point TULIP Calvinist or reformed, . . ." #2 Believes the critical reviews of "The Shack" are "by respected theologians who want to cram their theology down other peoples throat." most likely Albert Mohler and Tim Challies. #3 He (the reviewer) also is in agreement with "much with the views of election taught by Trinitarian theologians like Karl Barth, T.F. Torrance, (Barth's student) C. Baxter Kruger, Malcolm Smith" I have heard nothing but negative comments about Barth's doctrine of election which is a [color:"FF0000"]red flag[/color] for me [color:"FF0000"]to stay away.[/color] As for all three members of the Trinity having nails driven through their hands this idea has to do with the word "Perichoresis" which I think has to do with fellowship within the trinity and at the same time oneness. You will have to search that out yourself. I think the view is biblical but has been exagerated by "The Shack" guys. If you are a good googler you can find a 35 minute video (interesting) by C. Baxter Kruger on the doctrine (his interpertation) of "perichoresis". a little sloppy I know. .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
Journeyman
|
|
Journeyman
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70 |
Tom said:
Does that mean that all three members of the Trinity had nails driven through their hands and died and rose again on the third day? I don't suppose that he meant that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48
Needs to get a Life
|
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48 |
Wiliam Thank you that was very helpful. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> Can you expand on why you think Perichoresis is biblical? Tom
Last edited by Tom; Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 193
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 193 |
Tom said:
Can you expand on why you think Perichoresis is biblical? I'm sure that William will "expand" on this; but, in the meantime, here are some of the biblical passages which I believe illustrate the idea of perichoresis: John 8:12-16
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." So the Pharisees said to him, "You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true." Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me.
John 10:37-39
If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.
John 14:8-11
Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
John 17:20-21
I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.good-music-guide.com/images/monogram.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
Addict
|
|
Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710 |
Tom, BradJHammond provided some good passages that show what the Bible teaches about perichoresis-indwelling/oneness. Here is a link that mentions perichoresis about 1/3 the way down the page. I selected the 3 quotes and truly hope that they are not taken out of context. http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr2000.html#HolyFamily<font size="4">The Holy Family:God As Truly Three </font> *
David J. Engelsma
Copyright © by David J. Engelsma
As the church has always understood, the indwelling, or perichoresis, of the Father and the Son is due to oneness of being. The unbelieving Jews understood this also. Their response was that "they sought again to take him."
From an original meaning of "encircling" or "encompassing," the term perichoresis has come to refer in theology to the mutual interpenetration and indwelling of the Father and the Son. The doctrine is based on John's teaching that the Father is in the Son and the Son, in the Father.
The theological tradition has viewed the indwelling as fellowship. John of Damascus, who was influential in developing the doctrine of the perichoresis, described it as a "cleaving together." The Reformed theologian Johannes Marchius wrote that "these personae meet mutually ... in ... mutua inexistentia." William
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48
Needs to get a Life
|
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892 Likes: 48 |
Thank you William and Brad, that was helpful. Although I have a huge problem with the author of The Shack making a novel that makes the Trinity appear to the main character. It almost looks like the author was trying to be consistent with Perichoresis. Though I still don't understand why he thinks that Perichoresis would mean that all three members would have scars on their hands. Unless I am missing something, although there is still a lot of problems with the book, it appears that at least in this particular area critiques such as Mohler and Challies are making too much of this issue. Something tells me I am missing something. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
Journeyman
|
|
Journeyman
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70 |
Tom said:
Thank you William and Brad, that was helpful.
Although I have a huge problem with the author of The Shack making a novel that makes the Trinity appear to the main character.
It almost looks like the author was trying to be consistent with Perichoresis. Though I still don't understand why he thinks that Perichoresis would mean that all three members would have scars on their hands. I'm sure that he wrote figuratively, and this isn't meant in any literal sense. Paul wrote that Christ 'became sin', i.e. took the punishment for human sin. Now does that mean that the Son only has that unique experience? Or is it the experience of the Father and the Spirit also?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274 |
xyz said:
I'm sure that he wrote figuratively, and this isn't meant in any literal sense. Paul wrote that Christ 'became sin', i.e. took the punishment for human sin. Now does that mean that the Son only has that unique experience? Or is it the experience of the Father and the Spirit also? Contrariwise, I cannot be so sure that the author was being "figurative" in his statements. But, I am FULLY sure that what Christ "experienced", specifically enduring the wrath of God poured out upon Him, as the God-man, in punishment (substitution) for the sins of the elect was NOT "shared" by the Father and Spirit. The Nicene and more so Athanasian Creed labors the point that although the three persons are inseparable they cannot be intermixed as each IS an individual person. They indeed have perfect union but they are not one and the same. The Father elects, the Son atones and the Spirit applies the benefits thereof. It cannot be said the Son elects, the Spirit atones and the Father applies . . . The Christ DIED, was buried and rose from the dead for our justification. It would be totally alien to biblical teaching and thus to historic Christianity to suggest that either of the other two persons of the Godhead "shared" in that event and all that it entailed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> This is basic Christian Doctrine 101. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <p align="center">[color:"0000CC"]<font size="4">The Athanasian Creed</font>[/color]</p>
Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [1] faith, which except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will perish eternally.
Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and one Holy Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity.
But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one however not by conversion of the Godhead in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation. In His grace,
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif) simul iustus et peccator![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
Journeyman
|
|
Journeyman
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70 |
Pilgrim said:xyz said:
I'm sure that he wrote figuratively, and this isn't meant in any literal sense. Paul wrote that Christ 'became sin', i.e. took the punishment for human sin. Now does that mean that the Son only has that unique experience? Or is it the experience of the Father and the Spirit also? Contrariwise, I cannot be so sure that the author was being "figurative" in his statements. Perhaps he was not, but presumably there is no argument that Jesus 'became sin'. But, I am FULLY sure that what Christ "experienced", specifically enduring the wrath of God poured out upon Him, as the God-man, in punishment (substitution) for the sins of the elect was NOT "shared" by the Father and Spirit. The Nicene and more so Athanasian Creed labors the point that although the three persons are inseparable they cannot be intermixed as each IS an individual person. Does that mean that Father and Spirit did not experience becoming sin? That they do may be the meaning of the SBC theologian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274
Head Honcho
|
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,025 Likes: 274 |
xyz said:
Perhaps he was not, but presumably there is no argument that Jesus 'became sin'.
Does that mean that Father and Spirit did not experience becoming sin? That they do may be the meaning of the SBC theologian. 1. There is no argument that Jesus "became sin" if understood correctly. The Lord Christ did not actually become sin, else He would have been a sinner Himself thus effectively making His atonement of no value. When Paul says that Jesus "became sin", he means he vicariously stood in the elect's place as is certainly clear from the passage itself:
2 Corinthians 5:21 (ASV) "Him who knew no sin he made [to be] sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him."
2. Correct, the Father and Spirit did NOT "experience becoming sin" as that was unique to the incarnate Christ. It was the Father's wrath which was poured out upon Christ. It was Christ Who suffered the punishment. It was Christ Who died and rose again. Thus once more, I would refer you to the Athanasian Creed and the distinction between the three persons of the Trinity. In His grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70
Journeyman
|
|
Journeyman
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 70 |
Pilgrim said:xyz said:
Perhaps he was not, but presumably there is no argument that Jesus 'became sin'.
Does that mean that Father and Spirit did not experience becoming sin? That they do may be the meaning of the SBC theologian. 1. There is no argument that Jesus "became sin" if understood correctly. The Lord Christ did not actually become sin, else He would have been a sinner Himself thus effectively making His atonement of no value. When Paul says that Jesus "became sin", he means he vicariously stood in the elect's place as is certainly clear from the passage itself: <blockquote> 2 Corinthians 5:21 (ASV) " Him who knew no sin he made [to be] sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him." </blockquote> 2. Correct, the Father and Spirit did NOT "experience becoming sin" as that was unique to the incarnate Christ. That uniqueness is not stated in Scripture. No doubt the SBC theologian is as aware of that verse as any.
|
|
|
|
|
1 members (NetChaplain),
162
guests, and
54
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|
