"The Shack" movie

My wife and I went to see "The Shack" tonight. In my opinion, "meh." The book was far better. A lot of folks had a lot of issues with the book, I didn't, really.

As an aside, I sat next to a talker. Not my wife Mary- the lady on the other side of me. She wasn't the normal type of irritating movie talker who might make a comment or two. Oh no. She was the movie talker who literally commented on every line, every scene. If a door opened, she declared, "the door opened." When the guy fell down she said "oops-- he fell down"- as if I needed help in figuring out what just happened on that huge screen right in front of me. She was like a gatling gun rat-a-tat-tatting footnotes with reckless abandon. Perhaps you have watched a DVD special feature with director's commentary-- well she was providing obnoxious lady commentary live and in person. If she was a Christian lady, and I think most were (it was packed) she didn't act very Christian-like. But we all have our crosses to bear. Well, I told Mary I had to vent about her or I would not be able to sleep tonight. So it's done. Thanks for listening!

Bro Todd,

More importantly this book and movie contradict the very nature of God.
I would be more concerned that our Lord is maligned, trivialized and portrayed in a secular, humanistic way. When the book first came out I was outraged and was appalled that so many Christians dismissed that very crucial aspect of the story. What will the movie do but anesthetize more people?

Sis L

The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason. Proverbs 26:16

If this proverb weren't true I'd add my reason to leyoung's, and the six others.

But...

Since it is true, suffice to say that the church-going american is content with sitting in the seat of the scornful on Saturday night, and sitting in the pew on Sunday morning.

Such persons remind me of the philosophers in Paul's day;

Acts 17:19-21

So they took Paul and brought him to the Areopagus, where they asked him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? For you are bringing some strange notions to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” Now all the Athenians and foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing more than hearing and articulating new ideas.

Many church-goers I know, who I care for very much, went to see the new Harry Potter movie last month, and "The Shack" last night.

And the month before, they went to see "Wicked".

But you can be sure they'll be in church on Sunday morning!

See ya'll in church tomorrow!

https://www.lifestream.org/whos-afraid-big-bad-shack/

Todd,

The article you posted adds insult to injury. You and Wayne err, not knowing Him with Whom we have to do.

Psalm 50

16God says this to the evildoer:
"How can you declare my commands,
and talk about my covenant?
17For you hate instruction
and reject my words.
18When you see a thief, you join him;
you associate with men who are unfaithful to their wives.
19You do damage with words,
and use your tongue to deceive.
20You plot against your brother;
you slander your own brother.
21When you did these things, I was silent,
so you thought I was exactly like you.
But now I will condemn you
and state my case against you!

Todd, I am sure you'd not mind if I write a book, and also produce a movie, publicly portraying your wife Mary as a transgender, starring Madonna, Ellen Degeneres, and Lady Gaga in the leading role as Mary. The names will be changed to protect the innocent of course, but nevertheless, I am sure the audience will not be deceived, but rather be more accurately familiar with who Mary really is.

God will hear and answer them””
Even the one who sits enthroned from of old”” Selah.
With whom there is no change,
And who do not fear God. Psalm 55:19

More importantly this book and movie contradict the very nature of God.

Pastor Gabe did not read the book very closely (if he read it at all), and is lifting quotes out of context. His objections have all been answered ad nauseum by numerous writers. Obviously, one is free to side with the dissenters or supporters.

The book really challenged me in various areas- but primarily here: "How is my RELATIONSHIP with God?" Not "how is my knowledge about Him" or "how is my service for Him" but how is my **relationship** with Him? Even coming away from the movie last night, I felt convicted that I should be very much closer to God than I am, through no fault of His- only mine.

One of the primary questions the book invites the reader to address is "Is God good?" The main character in the book (remember, this is a novel, not a theological dissertation) is struggling with this question because something absolutely horrible that happened in his family. A thoughtful Christian who is honest has likely struggled with the dissonance arising from the belief in a God who we believe is good, when at the same time absolutely horrible things happen every day. I am sure that many people who reject God do so on this basis. John Stott once said that "the fact of suffering undoubtedly constitutes the single greatest challenge to the Christian faith, and has been in every generation. Its distribution and degree appear to be entirely random and therefore unfair. Sensitive spirits ask if it can possibly be reconciled with God’s justice and love.” On the way home from the movie, I asked Mary about the popular worship song with the words "His love never fails, it never gives up, it never runs out on me" and whether these words were true. Because they may ring true for me, but there are millions of little children every day who are abused horribly and dying of starvation. The book does a very good job of addressing this question in an understandable way.

I am certainly not going to say that I 100% agree with every theological point in "The Shack." But I am not the author and he wrote the book as he saw fit. He never claimed he wanted to convert people to his line of thinking. If I want to I could write my own book. But if a person reads the book as a novel to get the big story and theme and not try to nitpick every little point, I believe much good can come of it.

I read the book when it came out.
It's not often that I feel like I fell into a cesspool.
Like Dan Brown's books [also read], it is a well-written not-so-subtle attack on Christianity. No surprise it's sold like hotcakes [what are those?!]
When I asked a dear sister how she could bear the First and Third Persons of the Godhead, being portrayed as women, she thought the author was just trying to remove our unnecessarily "religious notions" about God! I calmly reminded that throughout Scripture, the Lord refers to Himself as a He.

These are perilous times are indeed....

Tolu-- I am not sure that you read the book very carefully because your statement that it is a "not so subtle attack on Christianity" is ridiculous.

First, this statement makes a judgment that the author, William Young, is not a Christian which is simply not true. He claims to be a believer and there is no reason to think that he is not. Have you read any of his own statements regarding this book? If he is a true Christian, which neither you nor I have any reason to doubt, why would he write a book that is an out and out attack on Christianity?

Your primary problem seems to be that God revealed Himself to the main character as a black matronly female. The key term here is "reveal." The book no where makes the claim that God is a female and to say it does is a lie. In the story, the main character, Mack, had a drunken father who beat him and his mother mercilessly. In the story it is brought out that Mack cannot draw near to God because of his experience with his own father. So God chose to reveal himself to Mack as a non-threatening black woman. Who are we to say how God might reveal himself? The dear sister you referenced is absolutely correct.

It is important to determine the ground on which Young’s detractors, like yourself, are standing. Are you saying that the Father is male? Or are you saying that the Father should only be depicted as male?

If the claim is that the Father simply is male, then it is the detractors and not the author of The Shack who have moved beyond the pale of orthodoxy. Standard Christian theology states that God is neither male nor female. Orthodoxy should applaud the statement coming from Young’s Father figure in chapter 6 when he states, "I am neither male nor female, even though both genders are derived from my nature” (p. 93).

If the Father is not essentially male, then one must wonder on what basis the Father must only be depicted as male. It’s not as if The Shack is stubborn in its insistence on making the Father a female. Young goes out of his way not only to provide reasons for his choice, but ultimately the Father character is revealed through a male image. Papa (now appearing as a dignified, older male) states, "Forgiving your dad yesterday was a significant part of your being able to know me as Father today” (221).

Once again, this is a FICTIONAL NOVEL. It is a story about a man's journey of pain and forgiveness and redemption. There is nothing in the book that is an attack on Christianity, subtle or otherwise. Nor is it a treatise on Christian doctrine.

I did not read the book but I did see the movie today and I really liked it.

I did not see the attack on Christianity that some have seen, I saw a beautiful story of redemption.

Firstly, I have neither read the book or seen the film, so my comments are purely in response to the posts on here.

God exclusively 'reveals' Himself in the bible as the patriarchal head, Father, Husband, King, etc, NEVER as a female. So if that is true, why would any Christian want to depict / 'reveal' God as matriarchal (or defend anyone who does)? Further more why on earth would any Christian want to read or watch such things when we have a wealth of good biblical resources for encouragement and instruction?

I think that either knowingly or not, we are in danger of being swept along by the spirit of the age, which is anti-patriarchal and the gender neutral lie. To say God is neither male or female, may be true in the sense God is not a Man, i.e. Human, but it plays into the transgenda lie that says there is no distinction between male and female.

Yeah Dave you have to read the book.

I just re-read Exodus 3 because I wanted to double check- God revealed himself as a burning bush, not even as a person. He did not refer to himself as "father" but rather "I AM THAT I AM."

The book is not trying to dismiss or reject the fact that God is revealed in scripture as a father. I am sure the author knew he was going to get white-hot heat from lots of folks when he decided to have him revealed, in part, as a female, much more so a black female. Why do want to assign evil motives to him-- like trying to further the "transgender agenda?" The book was written quite a while back when that issue was not close to being on the front burner that it is today and it's not right to accuse him of that. Besides, like I said he was not rejecting the idea of God as Father. In my post below I even quoted: " "Forgiving your dad yesterday was a significant part of your being able to know me as Father today." That was God talking to the main character.

Are the only things you ever read or watch "biblical resources," whatever that means? If so, God bless you!

Todd,

If you read my post again, I never accused the author of deliberately seeking to futher the transgenda agenda, but I do think it plays into that agenda. To suggset it was written so long ago before was an issue is not correct, unless it was written over 50 years ago!

My comment about exclusively revealing as patriarchal is in the context of 'not female', not that He does not reveal His character in other ways. That said the point stands, why 'reveal God as female' when He never does?

Of cousre I watch and read other things other that biblical resources, but I chose NOT to read or watch things that claim to be 'Christian' that are clearly a distortion of the truth, (unless I want to research a false religion). Why would I?

As one man has said, and I think it applies in this case...

"Even a dog barks when his Master is being attacked".

Dave-

I can understand that. Some will read if to see what the fuss is about; some who do will not see what all the fuss is about; some will agree with some, but not all, of the fuss (which is where I stand) and some will think its the worst heresy ever put on paper.

I think the story and message in the book is so strong that I can overlook some of the theologically iffy areas (in my view, perhaps not others') so as not to let it ruin the story. Once again, the main gist of the novel is to try to convey the heart and love of God towards people, especially in times of great tragedy.

My big takeaway is that God wants to be far closer to me than I have ever allowed Him to be, either because I am afraid, or because I don't know how.

TMK wrote
I think the story and message in the book is so strong that I can overlook some of the theologically iffy areas (in my view, perhaps not others') so as not to let it ruin the story. Once again, the main gist of the novel is to try to convey the heart and love of God towards people, especially in times of great tragedy.

My big takeaway is that God wants to be far closer to me than I have ever allowed Him to be, either because I am afraid, or because I don't know how.

God goes out of His way to love us if we will only let Him.

I can't believe the judgmentalness of people who haven't even read the book or seen the movie... it's unbelievable.

Lisa, the flesh loves to judge, and remember our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Yes believe it or not, even Christians leave the door open at times, I know I do. :-)

Bros and sisters,
I'm glad this is being discussed. As a woman I can and have been emotionally touched and swayed (and deceived)by a powerful story. The Christian author of 'The Shack' says it is a fictional account. However fictional accounts which depict God need to be true to the biblical God. If they are not then the story is wasted no matter how emotionally poignant it is.

I respect so many of you here and I see a very dangerous red line being crossed by some for the sake of a redemptive story.
I was raised in a false religion that maligns the true nature of the God of the Bible (Mormonism). To this day my nostalgic emotions can pull me back into a state of mushy theology to try and rationalize so many whom I Iove who are still rejecting Jesus Christ, but I am snapped back into reality by reading the Word of God.

I no longer want to be ruled by emotions, this is where the heart can be desperately wicked. God will bring enough overwhelming love to sustain us and when we don't FEEL anything we can be assured that He is still with us because He says so in His Word.

More and more I see Christians being led by emotions rather than Truth. I am not angry, except at the enemy of our souls. I am frightened that so many of us get so snookered into error by our emotional judgments.

I liked what Savannah said, Even a dog knows when his master is being attacked. We have to stay ready in season and out to speak the truth in love.
The Apostle Paul warned the church near the end of his life, "Preach the Word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all patience and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away from truth, and shall be turned to fables, but watch yourself in ALL things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of your ministry." 2 Timothy 4:2-5

The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits. Grace be with you! Amen

Taken from William Paul Young's own website.

Regarding his new book, 'Lies people believe about God'. These are what he considers to be lies......

"God wants to use me.”
"God is in control.”
"God is a prude.”
"God does not submit.”
"Death is more powerful than God.”
"Hell is separation from God.”
"Sin separates us from God.”
"God is disappointed in me.”
And more!

So he does not believe God is in control, Hell and sin do not seperate us from God and that God submits!

I would keep well away from anything this man has to do with.

I have not seen the movie, I heard it's fiction, not that that is any cop out, but it is fiction. I surly won't mention here, that I watched O God with John Denver and George Burns and Teri Garr. :-)

Bill,

I think you are missing the point. The film purports to be Christian and is aimed at and endorsed by evangelicals. The fact it is fiction is not an excuse for misrepresenting God. I know of one younf Christisn who read the book and ended up with a wrong view of God and has made shipwreck of their faith.

Regrading being judgmental, I find that a bit ironic, in that I understand that the author projects God as non judgemental! Has he already influenced his audience?

Allegories about God that actually harm the clarity of truth of who God is, who Jesus is and the gospel are harmful allegories.

Of the gospel, the Shack says, "All I want from you is to trust me with what little you can, and grow in loving people around you with the same love I share with you. It's not your job to change them, or to convince them. You are free to love without an agenda.”

However, of this, the Bible says, "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." 2 Cor. 5:11

Of the Holy Spirit, The Shack says, "I," she [the Holy Spirit] opened her hands to include Jesus and Papa, "I am a verb. I am that I am. I will be who I will be. I am a verb! I am alive, dynamic, ever active and moving. I am a being verb. And as my very essence is a verb, I am more attuned to verbs than nouns. Verbs such as confessing, repenting, living, loving, responding, growing, reaping, changing, sowing, running, dancing, singing, and on and on. Humans, on the other hand, have a knack for taking a verb that is alive and full of grace and turning it into a dead noun or principle that reeks of rules. Nouns exist because there is a created universe and physical reality, but the universe is only a mass of nouns, it is dead. Unless 'I am' there are no verbs and verbs are what makes the universe alive.”

Of the Holy Spirit, the Bible (some manuscripts) says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7. Of JESUS, the Bible says --- all known translations --- "1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands””this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ..". 1 John 1:1-3; AND "1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." John 1:1-5.

The Holy Spirit is never revealed as the Word --- no matter what silly parts of speech analogy one may assign to Him. The Shack convolutes the identity and nature of the Son, regardless of what else it does. The what else it does that may be perceived as good which is exactly what makes it dangerous and less an allegory and more of an elaborate and sweetly told lie. The Holy Sprit is not a verb. In fact, He is, indeed, described in what The Shack calls 'dead nouns'. Jesus used at least two such 'dead nouns' to describe Him --- "Comforter" and "promise of the Father." He is a person. Verbs are ideas, expressions. The Holy Spirit is not an idea or a mere expression. He is the person whose work (ok, THAT is a verb) is to testify of Jesus Christ. If the testimony of the Spirit is true, He testifies that Jesus is the Word. He does not ascribe such language to Himself. In The Shack, this figure of the Holy Spirit lies, saying of himself or herself that "I am a word, verbs." It is a reckless muddying of the biblical revelation of God, specifically the marring of the person of the Son, His ministry and the overall nature and person of God.

Just because a thing is not overtly and blatantly hostile in its stated intent does not reduce by one little iota the falsity and perversion of biblical truth it may wring out of itself. The Shack, book, movie, soundtrack, whatever, is a lie from hell that would compare itself to allegories such as Pilgim's Progress.

People can do with it what you will. You can sweeten a bowl of dung with five pounds of sugar and a chocolate gravy but it is still a bowl of dung.

quote: "Regarding his new book, 'Lies people believe about God'. These are what he considers to be lies......

"God wants to use me.”
"God is in control.”
"God is a prude.”
"God does not submit.”
"Death is more powerful than God.”
"Hell is separation from God.”
"Sin separates us from God.”
"God is disappointed in me.”
____________________________

I would have to see the context of what he means (i.e. read the book, before I could make any snap judgment of these statements. I could come up with a reasonable explanation of how each are lies, at least in some way, with minimal effort.

"God wants to use me.” (rather, he wants to have a relationship with me)
"God is in control.” (Rather, God allows free will)
"God is a prude.” (God created sex)
"God does not submit.” (Jesus submitted to the Father).
"Death is more powerful than God.” (this one is obviously a lie)
"Hell is separation from God.” (God is omnipresent; Rom 8:38-39)
"Sin separates us from God.” (The prodigal son)
"God is disappointed in me.” (the prodigal son)

Dave, I have not seen the movie, but my movie buff buddy has, and always seems to be a critic of most of the movies he watches, this was his opinion, not mine:

I've read this book 3 times and figured that the movie wouldn't be as good, but I was wrong. LOVED it. I've never seen nor read anything that portrayed the love of God for all of humanity in such an amazing way. A large focus of this movie is on forgiving others even those that we feel have done horrible, unforgivable things. God is portrayed as both a female and a male, for the simple fact that the main character had deep hurts from his past that initially wouldn't have allowed him to be open to accepting a "male" God. (Jesus is male throughout the entire movie, however) It also reminds us that while a pain-free life is non-existent, we're able to overcome the evil in this world by trusting in God, because He is always there in the midst of things, working towards good.

It reminds us to have compassion (rather than hatred) towards others because "brokenness goes all the way back to Adam". We weren't created to be judges of good and evil- we were created to experience relationship with God. I completely agree with all of this, and am having a hard time understanding all of the negativity surrounding it. I can't imagine anyone watching it and not having a strong desire to experience God's love and share it with other people. If there are small details that aren't 100% Biblical, please remember that this is a work of fiction, and at no time has anyone claimed it to be otherwise. I can speak from personal experience though; both the book and the movie are life-changing. God can sort out the small stuff if He sees fit. Please don't form an opinion either way BEFORE watching, and PLEASE watch It. It hurts my heart that some people will miss out on all of the positive things that this movie has, and all of the good things that it can lead them towards, because of the negative press associated with it.

The Bible tells us that we won't have a full understanding of the "mystery of God" in this lifetime, and this movie stirs up such a desire to know more about God and to develop a deeper relationship with Him. Anything that stirs up that kind of hunger shouldn’t be discredited. In my opinion, if you can't get past the fact that a fictional story doesn't depict the Godhead (something that we can't possibly fully understand) exactly as you understand it, maybe the problem isn't the story...

More from Young's website, written by a pastor who is defending Young's docrine.

Speaks for itself really. He ignores the scriptures and is hopeful all will eeventually be saved!

"Paul Young told me he is a "hopeful universalist.” He believes that our loving God sent His Son to die for every single sinner without exception. One day God will effectually reconcile every sinner to Himself. Paul uses the term "hopeful” universalism because he understands that the Scriptures speak of judgment, but Paul is "hopeful” that even in judgment, the love of God will eventually bring the sinner being judged to love for Jesus Christ. Paul Young is "hopeful” that the fire of God’s love will eventually and effectually persuade every sinner of God’s love in Christ. "

Well it's up to you now. Check him out on his own website.

Lot of different opinions here, I can't really voice a personal opinion, because I have not seen the movie. I will say this, anything that creates a hunger for Christ, is a good thing in my world.

In regard to universalism, in the link I posted very early in this thread to an article by Wayne Jacobson, he stated that he specifically removed any potential references to this from the book. This was a condition of his assisting in the completion of the book (He was a co-author).

Lovingness is not a cure for deception. The Shack may be a vivid portrayal of lovingness. But, as it relates to the nature and person of God, it also deceives. It flatly misrepresents who God is. And that issue -- who God is -- is the base issue on which all of today's attacks on Jesus rest. I submit to you that The Shack is an attack on the revelation of Christ to us. IMO it is a sappy, sentimental attack, but in this era where discernment is lacking and deception is chief, sappy sentimental attacks are especially effective.

Exactly Tim, you see the real issue, it's about the character of God.

Its not about any particular church practice, even thought that might be an error, but about a distorted portrayal of who God is...., but hey! I guess it's ok to ignore this as long as we get entertained or emotionally moved.

On the whole, I'd say that "The Shack" is less damaging to God's character than "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" but of course that is simply this guy's opinion.

That being said, I think I'll bow out of this discussion (which I have enjoyed) since I think all the major points have been made.

I appreciate everyone's viewpoints.

Bro Frank

Okay. There are attacks from within the church that have deceived many. I agree. John MacArthur has butchered true believers and left them lying in the street covered in blood and walked away from them like Vin Diesel in an action movie.

I will liken that to AIDS, autoimmune disease turning the body on itself.

The Shack, like so many other present deceptions, is an aphrodisiac. It doesn't kill anyone. It just swoons them into a mental and emotional mood, if you will. It says, "Feel that? Yeah, baby. That's God." And, people buy it, like it, and embrace it. They will also defend it, and swallow the root of deception--that God is someone other than who He says He is in the Scriptures.

John MacArthur is easy to see coming a mile away. And, all you need to absorb the blows from the likes of him is a thick skin. But, The Shack inflicts warmth; it inflicts kindness. It inflicts a framework of thought that redefines God's revelation of "I am" and offers another more palatable refreshment of that disguised as "I am not who you think I am." Slippery. It doesn't require anyone to reject God. It seduces one into simply reconsidering who He is. And, it offers specific alternatives to the biblical revelation of who He is -- it slips in a spiritual mickey.

These are different attacks in kind. The latter requires a more vigorous warning and should be expected to be met with exactly the kind of equivocation and blurring of issues as is even seen in this thread. After reading this thread, I took a moment to see what professing Christians are saying aboutnthe movie. No surprise. They are saying the very kinds of things we see here. When confronted with the means by which the book or movie lead people from the apostolic, biblical faith, they retreat to gross simplifications about love and redemption OR they say "not as bad as this other thing". Neither of those is a response. Both are mere covers.

HeyDave wrote:
by Heydave on 2017/3/5 13:06:05

Taken from William Paul Young's own website.

Regarding his new book, 'Lies people believe about God'. These are what he considers to be lies......

"God wants to use me.”
"God is in control.”
"God is a prude.”
"God does not submit.”
"Death is more powerful than God.”
"Hell is separation from God.”
"Sin separates us from God.”
"God is disappointed in me.”
And more!

So he does not believe God is in control, Hell and sin do not seperate us from God and that God submits!

I would keep well away from anything this man has to do with.

How about including the the top portion from that particular page of his website...

Lies We Believe About God.
Wm. Paul Young

A couple of years ago, I started tweeting a series of thought under the heading, "Words you will NEVER hear God say.” For those of us who have grown up in a religious environment, sometimes we heard positive affirmations so often that they became meaningless. But when you look at negative space, elements stand out that you missed or that your assumptions had hidden.

Words you will NEVER hear God say:

"The depth of my affection for you is dependent upon you.”
"I expected you to do better.”
"If you don’t say the magic words, my hands are tied…sorry about that.”
"I allow evil because it will make you a better person.”
"You are deafer than my ability to communicate.”

You get the idea.
________________________

appolus
Movies in general , I believe do not move people. If your ignorant when you went in you will be just as ignorant when you come out.

Can you explain what you mean when you say "John MacArthur has butchered true believers and left them lying in the street covered in blood."

John MacArthur has faithfully preached the gospel for 40+ years and there haven't been any scandals surrounding his ministry.

Matt,

I am glad you asked! Awfully strong language used there.

Maybe someone might be able to point us to those "...lying in the street covered in blood". It would be a gruesome sight but nevertheless it'd be worth it if we may be able to help them.

But...like the evolutionists,I don't think they'll offer us any concrete evidence of even one example.

Strange Fire conference.

Strange Fire conference.

Editing to add, for clarity for those who would say I'm acting like an evolutionist. If I say it and I'm not certain of it concretely, I'll admit when I say it. So, here you go.

John MacArthur said that Pentecostal Christians make up "a false church as dangerous as any cult or heresy that has ever assaulted Christianity." That's a drive-by shooting if ever there was one. Notwithstanding errors among us, that is a complete exclusion from the Christian faith of all bible-believing Pentecostals, including myself. I can forgive it, and have, but it doesn't change what he did. MacArthur is right on a lot of things. I love his teaching on the parallels of Islam's Mahdi and the biblical antichrist. But, he wouldn't warn me of that particular danger since my first hurdle in his eyes is getting saved and agreeing with him. In fact, MacArthur went so far as to say that Pentecostals who don't agree with him that Pentecostalism is outside of the faith are "nonbelievers" and that "I don't expect nonbelievers to have a desire for the truth, a hunger for the truth or to search out the truth. That's not what unbelievers do...".

MacArthur smiled politely and threw John Piper under a bus on his way from the slaughter, taking the time to especially address Piper's responses (note: responses from Piper TO things MacArthur said about him at Strange Fire) as baseless and having no biblical foundation, although he made sure to say he appreciated John Piper anyway. Feel the love.

I am not going to turn away from discussing The Shack by getting into a debate about MacArthur's contempt for Pentecostals. My use of MacArthur was simply to provide an example of brother Frank's point that Christians attack each other much more severely than the damage wrought by The Shack. In fact, I think MacArthur would agree with me about The Shack, but I am slow to say so. He would say I have no business commenting on it since I'm going to hell anyway if I don't repent of my belief in the bible.

But, you asked for an example of what my allusion to MacArthur was about. There you have it.

dolfan/Tim said......"My use of MacArthur was simply to provide an example of brother Frank's point that Christians attack each other much more severely than the damage wrought by The Shack".

I appreciate your appreciation, Bill and Frank. I hope you guys know my respect for you is deep and heartfelt. Yet I don't share the view that a MacArthur style attack is worse than the substance of what The Shack says about the nature of God. I still believe it is much different kind of thing altogether that The Shack does. I can defend against MacArthur or better yet ignore him to no peril. The Shack, unrebutted and unconfronted, leaves a twisted view of God so plainly and easily visible as being opposed to the clear statements of Scripture about who God is that IMO a rebuttal is demanded.

In the past two days I have had two people I know and love deeply -- one whose embrace of The Shack actually shocked me -- that I am asking myself today "how?" I am quite honestly deflated about it.

I spent about 20 minutes on the phone today explaining the problem athe Shack presents but 20 minutes isn't enough. Why? Because the reason why The Shack IS a problem runs deeply inside people's minds: Christians really do not know who God is, His nature nor the reality of Scriptural revelation nor its importance. We have so wrapped ourselves in the mantra about "relationship with God" that we just assume we don't need to understand the Scriptural "revelation of God". Deception is made so much easier. It is clear why Jesus first responded to questions about signs of the end and of His return with the admonition "see that you are not deceived". People don't see that they ARE. It is a vitally real problem.

Quote: "Because the reason why The Shack IS a problem runs deeply inside people's minds: Christians really do not know who God is, His nature nor the reality of Scriptural revelation nor its importance. We have so wrapped ourselves in the mantra about "relationship with God" that we just assume we don't need to understand the Scriptural "revelation of God". Deception is made so much easier. It is clear why Jesus first responded to questions about signs of the end and of His return with the admonition "see that you are not deceived". People don't see that they ARE. It is a vitally real problem."
________________________________________________________________________

This is the truth brother and I cannot understand how folk just cannot ( or don't want to) see it!

"John MacArthur has faithfully preached the gospel for 40+ years and there haven't been any scandals surrounding his ministry."

and that is commendable, and the Lord Who searches hearts will reward him in that day...or not...according to His faithfulness.

I, for one, am so glad that the Lord saw fit to preserve the complete body of scriptures and not only the one sided teaching of men.

I cannot honestly listen to these men anymore, because if they can argue away three chapters of a certain letter to a certain church in Corinth, what will they be willing to do with other portions?

Matthew 12:31 KJV Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

There is no excuse for men who rail against the Holy Spirit, speaking evil of and denying Him, and attributing His work to the devil. That is a spirit of anti-Christ.

One will never be able to blame this denial of the Holy Spirit on men who have polluted, prostituted, and abused the experience for their own filthy gain.

The very fact we have men who reduce the Holy Spirit to something evil, wicked, or trivial is so that those who are approved of God might be made known.

We are living in the very days of separation, it's happening through movies that twist and pervert the very Person of God and His Word and relies heavily on an emotional fleshly response.

The bible says a little leaven leavens the whole lump. For me, I just learned of this movie literally last week when this topic came up.

After prayerful research of this movie and its content I will not be going to see it nor would I entertain taking a loved one or friend to see it.

While I do not fault or condemn those who have chosen to go and see the movie I do believe that God has a higher road and purpose for His people.

I appreciate and bear witness with the rationale against this particular movie and it is concerning some of the arguments for it are based on it being a work of fiction.

I am not comfortable with that given the portrayal of the Godhead in all three forms as well as a character named Jesus.

Most of us know and condemn the pitfalls with the seeker friendly churches out there that try to make Christianity appealing and acceptable. I do not see a difference with this particular film.

Hey TMK,
Quite a visceral response there...but not entirely surprising.

If Peter, after 3 years of following Christ could boldly attack Him for saying He would be crucufied, why is it hard to see that even so-called Christians can attack Christ?

Others have eloquently addressed your question about the Father being portrayed as female, so no need to return there.

As for my being a detractor of Mr. Young, if I saw trying to drink juice spiked with strychnine should i just sit idly by and not warn them? Just so i don't offend them in case they really do like the taste of strychnine?

These are my opinions, ridiculous as they may seem to you, but they are offered in a spirit of brotherhood.

...the world and its things will pass away...but the Word of the Lord will remain forever...

I remember reading The Shack a few years ago, enjoyed it (fully understanding that it was imaginary and fictional) and since have forgotten all about it.

I still read and remember the Word of God regularly and strive to live by its revelation of God and of His Christ.

That which is of God remaineth.

Blessings,

stiritup wrote about John MacArthur:
I cannot honestly listen to these men anymore, because if they can argue away three chapters of a certain letter to a certain church in Corinth, what will they be willing to do with other portions?

I could not agree more brother............bro Frank

I did not know anything about this movie or novel. But I thought I will share my opinion on how Christians and non Christians react to such subjects.

My very first exposure to Jesus Christ was through Da Vinci Code book! I read it when I was say 22 years old and read it fully in less than a week. Was so thrilled by the book. But I also went ahead to find whether the claims made in the book were true. I found that it was not. I still rated it as a great book even though certain claims made by the book were found to be lies.

Now that I am a Christian who knows Jesus, how do I respond to a book like Da Vinci code? I will give the same response that Jesus gave 2000 years back. Anything said against the son of man is forgiven! Jesus has forgiven Dan Brown 2000 years back itself. So why should we now fight for preserving his name? Muslims fight and issue fatwa on anyone questioning Mohamed. If we too do the same then what is the difference between us and them?

Sree-

Well stated.

But what of certain brethren who deny the work of the Holy Spirit? Are these brethren not in danger of blaspheming the Spirit? In which case, according to scripture, there is no forgiveness for them.

Good question. My understanding is, either it is the name of Holy Spirit or Jesus, if it is being blasphemed outside my area of spiritual authority, I have no need for taking any action. But if it is within the area of my spiritual authority, then I have to stand for it. For example in my Church, if the name of Jesus is blasphemed by some fellow brothers are sisters, then if I have to take it to leadership or if I am a leader then I do need to take appropriate action. Similarly in my house where I have a spiritual responsibility.

But if it is outside of my spiritual authority then I have nothing against him. Like how Apostle Paul said, I do not judge those who are outside the Church. Even in Revelation, Jesus wrote letters only to 7 churches. What about the Church of Corinthians, Philippians? I think those 7 Churches were under the authority of John. John had some responsibility for those Churches. Hence Jesus showed John about their true spiritual condition. But about rest of the Churches like Corinthians, Jesus shielded their condition from John. John does not need to know about them nor take any action against them.

The same way, I have nothing against those who ignore the ministry of Holy Spirit and call me a heretic for believing in the HS.

But this is only my opinion. There are brothers who have the ministry to fight against all blasphemy in the name of Jesus and Holy Spirit found in Christendom today. Jesus himself had a calling to annoy Pharisees during his life time. He kept doing his miracles on Sabbath to annoy them! He also publicly spoke against them. But I do not believe everyone has this calling today in Christendom. I do not have that calling. But if some have and question all the ugly things done in the name of Jesus and Holy Spirit, then I do not judge them.

This is just my take.

I'm just going to throw this out there, because I would like to see the responses. If I go watch the movie for myself, because I felt led to go watch it, and the movie personally Blessed me, would this scripture still be relevant? "And we know that "all things" work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose". Or, would some say, no Bill, there is no way that movie will ever work together for your good, and that is not the "all things" God was talking about.

I don't think Greg is required to weigh in. We don't need official stances. We need discernment and love and humility and discernment. 😏

Bro Bear, your response to my questions was awesome, not because I just want to agree with it, because you're right. No movie to this day, and I'm "65" has ever changed me mentally or physically in any way.

And I don't even understand Bro Marks response, it's way over my head.

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. Acts 26:28

As Agrippa said unto Paul,I say unto ya'll, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Shackian.

As hard as it is for some people to accept, it is entirely biblical for God to be represented as both male and female, which is the case in "The Shack".
In fact it goes all the way back to Genesis:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Genesis 1:27 KJV

"So GodH430 createdH1254 (H853) manH120 in his own image,H6754 in the imageH6754 of GodH430 createdH1254 he him; maleH2145 and femaleH5347 createdH1254 he them."
Genesis 1:27 KJV+

H120 - Man
âdâm
aw-dawm'
From H119; ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): - X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

H2145 - Male
zâkâr
zaw-kawr'
From H2142; properly remembered, that is, a male (of man or animals, as being the most noteworthy sex): - X him, male, man (child, -kind).

(Strong's concordance)

So more accurately:
"So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.”
Genesis”¬ ”­1:27”¬ ”­GW

There are other examples as well...

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" Luke 13:34 KJV (see also Matthew 23:37)

Maybe what The Shack is saying about the always loving character of God is more the point then how it's presented, especially when you consider that allegory is not meant to be taken literally in the first place.

You cannot justify it by saying "it's just an allegory", because it's not allegorical in the truest sense, like say Pilgrims progress. What it does is actually say that this woman is God the Father and this other woman is the Holt Spirit. That's perverting the truth, even if it is a fictional book and film.

When scripture consistently reveals God as patriarchal as Father, Husband, King, it is not OK to declare the opposite. It has profound spiritual consequences in the church, namely more deception and apostasy.

We live in a day when society is saying a man can 'self confess' to be a woman and therefore has to be accepted as a woman. Now we have a so called 'Christain' film that has God self confessing to be a woman! And folk think that's ok?

Wow...reading this thread and seeing all these comments has really amazed me on how so many in the body of Christ overlook certain things when it comes to God and the infallibility of His Word!

Dolfan, I really did appreciate and enjoy your posts. I loved your sincerety and the time you put in your posts to articulate so well why this movie dishonors the true and living God.

Jesus told us to take heed, let no man deceive you! There are so many being deceived concerning God's Word in these last days.

It is said that so many are putting their feelings and emotions ahead of God's Word. Are Christians lacking the joy and presence of the Holy Spirit so much that one could actually enjoy a movie that misrepresents God? Do we need someone to make us a movie about God that is fictional that we actually enjoy better that the actual truth in the scriptures?

I read where someone said "it is just a fictional movie about forgiveness, grace, and redemption" but what is fictional about forgiveness, grace, and redemption. I mean forgiveness, grace, and redemption is biblical. Why would we need someone to misrepresent biblical true in the name of fiction to help us feel better about the Love of God. I'm appalled at the idea, pure blasphemy to misrepresent God in this fashion. I love God just like the scriptures reveal. His love is revealed in the scriptures through His own Son greater that any fictional story misrepresenting him could ever demonstrate His love.

Blessings to all!

Perhaps if someone could elucidate EXACTLY how God is misrepresented in the book it would be helpful. And I don't mean cut and pasted from heresy hunter websites.

P.S. the idea that the book insists that God is female has already been dealt with.

I know I said I was going to back out of this thread but it's getting pretty thick in here from folks who have NEVER READ THE BOOK. Pretty disgusting if you ask me.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that William P. Young is not a Christian or that he is purposefully misleading people for some nefarious and evil purpose.

Millions of Christians have said they have been blessed in some way by the book or movie, including me. Who in the world are you to call them liars or deceived??

Great input from Dave, Mark, and Rbanks.

On Daves point a spirit of Jezebel is and will be pervading in the end time big picture.

I don't know what more about The Shack needs clarifying as misleading about who God is than the quotes I posted from the book. The female-as-Father issue is not even a reason I personally find disturbing because it is so silly that I really thought people would choose to not see the movie. (I vastly underestimated how many people read the book. I don't know why anyone would, even without the problems.)

The Shack puts a lie directly into God's mouth. "Papa" says, "you won't find the word responsibility in Scripture." Patently false. Oh, not in the mancuscripts. They aren't in English. :) But, there are MANY passages that clearly say we are responsible for many things. One is our sin: each will give account of himself to God. One is obedience: He who loves Jesus keeps His commandments. One is loving each other in the church -- koinonia, a word which carries the idea of responsibility to one another.

One example is sufficient to prove conclusively that The Shack is full of serious misrepresentations that torture the clarity of the Biblical revelation of God. These are but a few, many more are inside the book. One is enough.

I don't want to come off as divisive or us verses them. But Tim has given very wise council on this topic which I appreciate. Like Tim says one argument is usually enough to prove the point.

My experience in my own life is that many times one scripture is enough for me which proves the point. However, that one scripture is quickened by the in dwelling Holy Spirit which drives the point home.

Some people however, no matter how many scriptures you give to prove a point will not make a difference.

I am not saying this to be condescending in any way. I always prefer to give the benefit of the doubt considering my own shortcomings.

Quote: "you won't find the word responsibility in Scripture."

I would have to see the context of this statement in the book to properly assess it. Unfortunately I have the audiobook so I could not easily find it.

Obviously the statement as written standing alone is not correct.

But I strongly suspect that there is a context behind that statement in the book.

"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." The Shack, p. 205

Context may be king, but explicit words that are plain on their face are sovereign over even context. Here, "Papa" is setting context by these words because Papa is explaining herself as God and what kind of God she/he is.

This book twists the biblical revelation of God. It is not an answer to say "well it is fiction." Porn is fiction, too, but the people are really having sex and it objectifies people and further perverts God's revelation of Himself in His creation (we are, still, bearers of His image). We don't dismiss the harm of porn because the stories are contrived. Rather, we call it what it is. The Shack is spiritual porn.

And if the theater doesn't get struck by lightning, it must be a sign that God is for it. Then it will be safe for me to take my family to see it.

Good to see the gift of discerning of spirits has not ceased among the people of God.

As the mystics would say, He works in mysterious ways.

Point to ponder. When 'Hacksaw Ridge' came out I went to see it. When I came out of the theater there was lady on a scooter asking us if we saw the movie. She was giving out small books of the movie complete with a commentary leading one to the Adventist church.

When a bad movie comes out that deals with the Christian faith what keeps Christians from doing a similar thing at the theater? The only thing I see is coming up with the literature to pass out.

Thoughts?

WHO IS PAUL YOUNG AND WHAT ELSE HAS HE WRITTEN?
We learn much about an author by what he has written. In Paul Young’s case he makes it very clear in speaking engagements that the book and its visual form are autobiographical””about him and his struggles to understand God. And The Shack is not the first thing that Paul Young wrote that helps us understand where he is coming from and where he is going.
Paul Young and I co-founded M3 Forum in the 1990’s to discuss any issue of Christian belief. For several years Paul was actively involved. Then on a given day in 2004 Paul read a 103-page paper on universal reconciliation (UR). It was a significant defense of this distortion of Christian theology. But what was most surprising was the fact that Paul confessed that he had departed from his "evangelical paradigm” and was embracing UR for himself. He defended this change in the strongest words possible. He cited Scripture and dealt with church history. From his perspective Christians have wrongly understood the nature of God, the Trinity, the church, marriage, government, the atonement and death of Christ on the cross, future judgment, hell and the lake of fire, relationship with God and other Christians, and many other matters
Paul’s basic complaint about Christian belief was that Christians were wrong in interpreting those places in the Bible that speak of God’s eternal judgment. Like all universalists Paul asserted that God’s mercy and love triumph over his judgment and holiness. The final destiny of all people and of the fallen angels including the Devil is one of bliss””heaven. In the future there will be none left in hell or in the lake of fire. These places are temporal and the judgment experienced there is meant to be corrective, not punishing, to lead all to repent and thus to be accepted into heaven.
When Paul had finished his paper I immediately raised some questions of concern. At the conclusion of our meeting Paul asked: "Jim, do you believe that I am a Christian?” I did not answer directly but answered by saying that a Christian is one who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and seeks to obey Scripture and live according to it.
Paul made no other remarks. The following month I presented a 22-page paper to answer the major points of his paper. But Paul was not present. He stopped attending our forum and never returned, although I pursued him with several phone calls. Apparently in that year he began his novel to put the contents of his paper into fiction. James B. De Young

Olive Tree Views radio hour broadcast discussed this book and movie today March 11, 2017

I for one wouldn't dare try to tell anyone not to read the book or watch the movie... but when a fine Christian brother like Dolfan explains the errors so graciously and people still have a problem with the truth then ignorance is still preferred rather than the true knowledge.of the Lord.

I just know what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me concerning these last days on how so many will be deceived in the name of Love.

Blessings to all!

Are we going to rip apart the movie hacksaw ridge. That was a true story. My question is. How many of you would have had the guts to do? What this brother did in the movie?

Bro Blaine

My point in bring up 'hacksaw ridge' was not to say it was wrong but that if the Adventists were pro active in giving out the book for free with a subtle direction to bring people to their church why are Christians not doing the same thing in bring literature about 'The Shack' warning of its heresy and what the bible has to say of it?

rbanks said.. "I just know what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me concerning these last days on how so many will be deceived in the name of Love".

The Bible tells us plenty about deception, we have all been deceived in life at some point. "Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ". Colossians 2:8

My guess if you have never been deceived, your a rare person, and lived a rare life, but being deceived and living in deception is two different things. Yes we should try our best to avoid all deception, but I'm guessing most of us have grown wiser by past deceptions.

Just because someone that has never received any feedback on the movie, and went and watched it, doesn't mean they went looking to be deceived. Maybe just maybe, some learned something from the movie, or felt it had parts that Blessed them. If you think you can walk through this life and not be deceived at all, I want to follow you. There are millions of ways to be deceived, and has always been, but as I said deception makes us wiser, and to go to God if we're not sure of something.

Good post Mr. Bear, if Adam would have never eaten the forbidden fruit, we would be having this conversation, right? As a result, the Bible says, "Sin entered the world through one man … and in this way death came to all men” (Romans 5:12). So can we blame all our faults/sins on Adam?

Quote: "So God appears to McKenzie as an African American woman. Many in this forum cannot handle that. But then I pray for Muslims who are experiencing Jesus as the Man in White. Many in this forum cannot handle that."

Bearmaster, you can't see the contradiction in your own argumrnt here? So when Jesus appers to those Muslim, he appears as a man in white.....however we see that that very same Jesus as a man in white in the bible, in the book of Revelation. So what would you say if if Jesus appears to Muslims as a African American woman? And how would they relate her to the God of the bible? The two are not comparable. One does not endorse the other! If you can't see that, there there really is no discernment.

You just ignore the facts and all the evidence that folk have presented here about the author's doctrinal views and it seems you had already predetermined to endorse the movie. That's up to you, but don't be surprised at the reaction you are getting here by those who uphold the integrity of the biblical revelation of God.

You have set up yet another 'straw man' to endorse your opinion, using Muslims coming to Christ in possible legitimate ways to somehow relate that to this dodgy film. Then you say those who cannot accept it are not spiritual. You may be 'spiritual', but what 'spirit' is it? If it denies the Christ of the bible it is not the 'spirit of Christ, but another spirit!

I have seen interviews that the author has given to explaine some of his views and when questioned by a sympathetic host he just dances around the edges of universalism, the bible as the word of God etc, not wanting to endorse sound doctrine. He came across to me as someone who has departed from orthodox theology concerning the nature of God, salvation and the scriptures and is promoting his opinions in a cloak of confusion and deceipt.

So on the basis of bearmaster assertion that if one cannot accept that Jesus can appear as a black woman, it is because they are not spiritual, therefore it would be logical to sccept that when Mormans tell us Joseph Smith met an angel who revealed golden tablets to him it must be true, if we are spiritual we would accept that! After all they know this is true because they have a 'burning in their bossom', they have the witness of the 'spirit'!!

I agree bear. I gleaned no theology from the book or the movie. The only thing I gleaned is a desire to grow in my relationship with God because that is what God wants.

It is for HIS sake that we should draw closer to Him, not ours.

I do believe this discussion is revealing, and Christians are very concerned about how far the Christian church is straying from her Lord.
This is a link to a believer and apologist, Matt Slick, who read the book, then interviewed the author in 2009.
He did a class on it before the film came out this month to warn and explain the problems and heresies found in the book.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8GwMsetmlpE

Sister L

This last days generation seems to be so bent toward corruption...the main aim of so many today is to love the creature above the creator. It doesn't seem to matter what God's Word says ...let's just love and accept everybody in all their sinful ways. Let's just sell out the truth in the name of Love. God's Word is not all that important many are saying today if we would just only love everybody.

1 Corinthians 1:18
The Wisdom of God
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Revelation 21:7-8
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

It's awesome how some believers relish ripping other believers, even highly respected believers who have contributed infinitely more to the Christian faith than the person doing the ripping ever will.

Spurgeon was a big cigar smoker- why aren't you ripping him?

Even heathens believe if you don't have something nice to say don't say it, but christians take special delight in attacking other believers for all the world to see.

You know this is one of those threads I was talking about one time, where to much has been said. I mentioned to Brother Greg one time, maybe he could implement some sort of rule, where a member could only post a certain number of times, on each thread. And hold on before you jump, YES! I'm guilty too! I think the "post rule" would help in keeping the strife down, and I also think we have some wonderful members here that would abide to it, without Greg having to monitor every thread, as I'm sure he has better things to do with his time.

We have to do something soon, my post count thing was just something I thought might help, but it may not be the silver bullet. I think if we can restrict one member from posting a dozen times, it would give others watching the thread an opportunity, to voice their thoughts, lets quit being so selfish. I don't know about the rest of you, but it's really hurts my heart, just to read some of the words I see in some of the threads here. I have been a member here for a while, and I've never seen a time when folks have beat each other up so bad on the threads here. Yes! we all have our opinions of everything in life, but this is not the place to always feel the need to come in first, this is a place that God has given up to gather in his name, and fellowship,and learn the word together.

I will tell you right now, I don't know the word like I want, but with all I been through in my life in the past 5 years, I do know God! and I know him very well, but I still hunger for this word. This is the place I come to quench myself for the word of God, because I don't have a church home at this time. Please allow me to come here in peace and receive your thoughts, and the word of God and leave here with a peace filled heart, this is all I ask.
I Love you all!
God Bless!
Mr. Bill

I haven't posted that much on here in a while but as of lately I have been disappointed and sadden at the lack of discernment and whining going on in this particular thread over a movie that misrepresents God.

What has happened to so many on a website that promotes true genuine revival. Have so many really been duped over a lovefest that doesn't even care about reverencing and loving God correctly according to His Word.

I'm amazed that He loved me...a sinner like me...but if I don't receive His salvation that causes me to love him back and repent of my sins...by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ who made an atoning sacrifice for my sins then I will never be able to escape a devils hell.

Blessings to all!

If you want to see a good Christian movie, go and watch Ben Hur or Prince of Egypt.

All these recent movies about God wrap some horse dung of error in a chocolate roll of (half) truth. The recent movie about the Arc was bad and "Moses" was gross. "The Shack" is much more clever in promoting error. The danger lies in its subtlety.

All these movies attack God's nature and character. God is Father, and - excuse me for being old fashioned - male.

There will be more such movies, especially those that promote the LGBT agenda to Christians.

Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

In 55 AD, Paul wrote he was "least of the apostles." In 60 AD, he wrote he was "least of all the saints." Around 64 AD, he said he was the "chief" of sinners. Note the progression.

Something for everyone to consider who wants to sit in judgment of other believers.

Peace and out!

Todd, you've seen me write this here numerous times before I'm sure,"You've never been beat up, until you have been beat up by a Christian". For those that's never seen me post this before, this was a quote I heard back in 1958 from a fire and brimstone, southern baptist pastor, at the church our family attended in Houston.

I was 7 years old at the time, and our congregation unlike today, never stood up and applauded, it just wasn't common back then at our church, but they did after that quote. Maybe they could all relate, and was applauding because he was right, and it hit very close to home. To this day, I still believe that quote holds true, and I much as I wish it would not, I truly believe it will hold true, till Jesus comes back.