This is The Faith Debate, a theological roundtable gabfest with the Mixed Master as the Master of Ceremonies and the notorious Triple B, the Big Bridge Builder. Can we build it? Yes, we can. The Faith Debate is a free-for-all forum where faith community leaders wrestle over the truth. In less than 30 minutes, learn more about what really matters than others learn in a month. Are you ready for a clash of ideas? Are you ready for the sound of freedom? Get ready to rumble! Let's get ready to rumble. Yeah! In this corner, weighing in with a master divinity from Reformed Theological Seminary, the Fate Debate Master of Ceremonies, Troy Skinner. Got a moron. And in this corner, weighing in as a pastor, teacher, and founder of bridges connecting needs and resources in the local community, the notorious big bridge builder, John Swicer. Now I'm just getting warmed up. The Shack is a movie that has raked in tens of millions of dollars at the box office. It's now available on DVD. Before that, The Shack was a book at the top of the bestseller lists, now with more than 20 million copies in print and counting. That's a lot of books. Shack has sold more copies than The Godfather, more than Jaws, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, more than The Grapes of Wrath, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Old Man and the Sea. Yes, even more than The Exorcist, Catch-22, and The Cat in the Hat. and the joy of sex. But as far as I know, it has not sold more than Who Moved My Cheese, and so the author, William Paul Young, shouldn't allow his head to get too big. Paul Young is on the show, joining us long distance by telephone today, and this is a technological experiment for us, and so far, we're weathering the storm okay, but I'm not sure that William Paul Young is gonna be any better for this experience when it's over. He's having a hard time sometimes hearing what we have to say, so. Anyway, let's reset the stages a little bit. If you haven't read The Shack, you haven't seen the movie yet, what's wrong with you? Go do so, you know, get yourself up to speed with what people are talking about. If you don't want to do that, at least go listen to the podcast, the beginning part of last week's show, and you can kind of get a quick rundown of what the story in The Shack is all about. But kind of resetting just a little bit, in the acknowledgements in the back of The Shack, William Paul Young himself is quoted saying that the book shows the ways in which God works. And we read in the back pages of the book that it offers a, quote, magnificent glimpse into the nature of God, that it offers one of the most poignant views of God and how he relates to humanity. Now, some might think, is Mac dreaming? Mac is the main character in the story. Is he dreaming or hallucinating? But in the shack, whatever the situation, he is presented as having an encounter with God. At least this is what the book intends for us to understand. And so, the question is, Is it God, the real God, the biblical God? There are critics who have their qualms, but there are great supporters who sing the praises of the book as well. So, I monopolized last week's show quite a bit because Jonathan Schweitzer wasn't here for the beginning of the show. So, in fairness, I'm going to let John ask the very first question on this week's show. It seems only fair. It might be the only question he gets to ask, though. We'll see. So last week, we talked just a little bit about, Paul, you were saying how Christ is, he's the revelation of God, that when God came close to us in Christ, in the incarnation, that that's when we came to understand even this is my language, not yours, even some of the terminology of the Old Testament, that we couldn't even understand holiness until we saw Christ and even his relationship with the Father, that we couldn't understand righteousness and justification, whatever the issues were that Christ kind of represents that. kind of a question that I think is pretty important, you know, for establishing on the front end, is how is it that we know what Christ was like? Like, what is our standard for knowing what He was like? How would you answer that question? I'd say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and then the other writers, that they had a revelation themselves of the person of Jesus. but that's where I would go. Right, so that's an obvious question, and the reason for asking a question like that is just to help to establish where are the places where you and I and Troy might already be on the same page, and then kind of explore a little bit, so where is it maybe where we diverge, because that's where the interesting conversations happen, not when we just start claiming that I know where you stand on things, but kind of exploring it a little bit. And so, would you say that Matthew, Mark, I don't know how to ask this question without sounding like I'm just leading. And so it seems to me that there's different ways to approach the Word of God in terms of how trustworthy it is and how much of the nuances that we see in the Gospels should be definitive for us in terms of kind of defining than who God, the Holy Spirit, you know, different ones are, you know. And so some people accuse conservatives of bibliolatry, you know, caring too much about the Word of God. And I think your view of Scripture, it sounds like you're inspired by it, that it has a strong influence on you, but could you just characterize, like, how you approach the Word of God kind of compared to some of the historical approaches to the Word of God? uh... and historical you mean a hundred years old but you mean a thousand years old uh... early christianity approached it uh... yes so there's a lot of uh... historical data to unwrapped there so maybe what i'm asking is uh... the that the approaches that that might be like the broad categories in the last hundred two hundred years uh... where would you see yourself as uh... fitting uh... you know in in some of those categories is that and okay way to ask that character so and and i think that this is a conversation i have with my own people a lot, and that is, I believe in the infallible, inerrant Word of God, and His name is Jesus. That's where I start the conversation. And because Scripture never claims either of those elements for itself, and the way that the New Testament writers even refer to the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Scriptures, is that they're reinterpreting it, oftentimes, and saying that, no, there are things about the way that those in the Hebrew scriptures in the Old Testament looked at the character of God and were wrong. They were wrong. everybody is looking from the New Testament through the person of Jesus at what was written before. So... Okay, can I ask a quick question, like an example of how the Old Testament is reinterpreted? Because I think probably you and I differ in our understanding of that, and that would just kind of, I think, be helpful for you and I to kind of identify to the extent that's the case. For example, Paul, who is an expert in Jewish thinking and rabbi school, he is the greatest mind taught by Gamaliel. And he quotes a section of scripture from the Old Testament, and in the Old Testament it says, Cursed by God is every man who hangs upon a tree. There is a rule in interpretation that repetition without redundancy equals interpretation. That is, If I repeat something that somebody says, but not exactly, then I'm interpreting what they said. And so when Paul quotes that same passage, he quotes it, cursed is every man who hangs upon a tree. He takes the by God part off. And that is interpretation. He is saying that no, it's not by God that anybody is cursed who hangs upon a tree. We did that. We cursed that person, which is exactly what Isaiah says. You know, we're the ones that turned our face away. We spat on him. And then Isaiah says, and we esteemed him stricken by God. So by the time Isaiah comes, Isaiah is making a comment about that, too. It is not God who curses someone on the tree. It is human beings who do that. So it looks like John tapped me on the shoulders. He wants to ask a follow-up. I would argue, so this is definitely a place where you and I are diverging from one another. So it's just helpful, again, as a marker that I find... a whole number of places in the New Testament where it's clear that God has wrath, that God punishes sin, that God is active in bringing judgment, and not just passive. And in fact, those many whom I've spoken with who argue that God is passive in that and that really we just feel the weight of our own sin, they even take that in the Old Testament. Like, they find places in the Old Testament where they feel like God is passive. And so, again, when I read the New Testament, I find, you know, in Thessalonians, for that matter, Romans, Ephesians, Revelation, and Christ himself noting that the master, when he comes, is going to kill the servants in the parables, right? Say, for example, and so I feel like we're hard-pressed to say that the New Testament somehow has shifted along those lines, except to say that the fullness of that wrath has been poured out on Christ. So, oh, you're saying that the fullness of the wrath of God was poured out on Christ? Is that what you're saying, or are you disagreeing with that? I am saying that it was poured out on Christ, but that doesn't mean that those that reject Christ do not face wrath. In fact, my understanding from the New Testament in a number of places is that the wrath of God remains on those who do not choose Christ. So what is the intention of that wrath? Actually, this is Troy again, jumping in. By the way, this is the Faith Debate on 930 WFMD. We're joined this week again by William Paul Young, the author of the very well-known The Shack. Jonathan Switzer is the other voice you're hearing on the show, of course. And you can find us online at wfmd.com, keyword faith. We'll get you directly to the Faith Debate page. I think another way of maybe asking the question that John's getting at, Papa in the story says, I don't need to punish people for sin. It's not my purpose to punish it. Sin is its own punishment. Yeah. Exactly. But if God doesn't punish for sin with death, what would be the reason, from your view, of why Jesus died? Because Jesus has to defeat sin, death, and Satan as a human being, because we're the ones that introduced them. And so he's got to go to the place of greatest loss. So His death is necessary. And He does it not only as us, but we're in Him. That's the argument in Corinthians. When He died, we died. When He rose, we rose. Because we are in Him. All of creation is created in Him. And so the death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the ascension, particularly the ascension, because that's what Moses and Elijah came to talk to Him about on the Mount of Transfiguration. is the restoration of humanity in terms of its authority when it absolutely destroyed it from the beginning through Adam. So it's not, you know, because punishment doesn't change anything. Punishment doesn't heal anything. And I believe that God is not a God who stands idly by, as McDonald says, but this is a God who is a flaming fire of fury, but that fury is love, and the intention of that love is restoration. and healing. I'm sorry to cut you off. Go ahead. No, no, no. Go ahead. Along those lines about punishment and stuff. What's your view on hell? Is there a hell? And if so, does anybody go there? Hell is a relationship to love. Hell is if you want to hold on to your stuff potentially forever, you can continue to say no. But I don't believe that you cease the ability to choose at death that has all kinds of problems. But so, hell is a relationship to love. You want to hold on to your stuff? The presence of love that you cannot separate yourself from will be hell to you. The process of the healing journey that is open to you will be hell to you. If you want to let your crap go, your darkness go, the presence of love will be heaven to you. So it is not about a spatial destination, because even in hell, however you understand it to be, you're not separated from God. There is no separation. Separation is something that religion absolutely needs in order to exist. But there is no separation. All of creation is created in Christ, which means that hell, however you look at it, is created by a good God with a good intention, and it is created in Christ. And so you're not going to escape from—you're not going to escape the love of God. No one who is in Christ—that is, the entire cosmos created in Christ—no one can be separated from the love of God. Not anything present, not anything future, not life nor death can separate you, nor any created thing. So it sounds like you're saying that— A person has the power to separate themselves from the love of God. now sounds like you're saying that if anybody goes to hell they go there temporarily i guess uh... and that eventually uh... what god's love it will win out love wins so to quote ron bell uh... solo and is that what you heard me say well it's a you're saying that no one will escape the love the love of of christ uh... and that in that includes the cosmos use it did you hear me say that potentially someone can say no forever Yeah, but okay, so that is a point of clarification, because I heard you after that say that in the end, basically, Christ wins because everybody is going to be redeemed in Christ because the whole cosmos is in Christ. But maybe I misunderstood, so I'm glad you're clarifying. No, everybody is already created in Christ. I mean, that's Orthodox early church theology. But nothing has come into being apart from Him. Everything, and go back to Colossians 1, 16 and 17, everything that is created, both the visible and the invisible, was created in Him. So there's no separation right from the beginning. You won't meet a person who is not in Christ. except that we're told in Ephesians chapter 1 that you also were included in Christ when you believed, right? And so what I hear you saying is that there's a creation in Christ that is the primary focus of all the New Testament emphasis about in Christ. And what we're saying is that the New Testament indicates that those that don't choose to believe in Christ then are not in Christ, i.e., John 15, where Jesus says, if my words remain in you and you remain in me, you will bear much fruit. And so he clarifies there, and again in Ephesians 1 and several other places, that being in Christ is... That's not an eschatological passage. He's not saying... He's just making a statement of fact. You know, if you want to hold on to your darkness, you're not going to bear the fruit of the life that is yours in Christ, even though you're in Christ. Right, and so... Lots of crap going on in your life. Right, so I'm just clarifying that the way that you interpret some of those passages is different from my understanding of classical Christianity. of classical Christianity, that in Christ is something that refers to those who have become believers in Jesus Christ, that have chosen Jesus Christ. And you're saying that in Christ is not something that's based on being chosen, but it's something that's based on just having been created just by being. And I would disagree that the position that I'm espousing is not classical Christianity. This is the early church. This is Athanasius Irenaeus and Hillary. This is the early church desert mothers and fathers that would say what I'm saying. What modern evangelicalism is the idea of separation, that you can remove yourself from being in Christ, that you have the capacity to do that. The early church quoting Athanasius, is if you are not in Christ, you are locked into non-being. There is nothing that is outside of Christ. So that would be the classic position. The modern position is the one that I'm opposed to that says that, look, if you are...you have the power to separate yourself from Christ, that you can do that, and still exist. And the early Church would have said, that's absolutely crazy. Is there, in your understanding of things, is there a judgment day coming? Of course. There are ages of judgment, according to the Greek. Ioniath is plural, as well as it is singular. So, yes. And what is it? Everybody gets salted with fire. What is the purpose of fire, and what is the purpose of salt? It's both redemptive and it's restorative. All the language with regard to fire is restorative. And there's a big issue in terms of, is hell punitive and retributive, or is it restorative in nature? The intention is restorative, according to Jeremiah. Jeremiah's viewpoint, he's the one that, you know, penned Lake of Fire, because he was talking about the Hinnom Valley, in which Marduk priests were slaughtering children by burning them. And so he took a big army in there and just leveled the place with fire, burned the place down. And it was the Lake of Fire. But the purpose of it was to cleanse and restore. And that becomes the symbol of that point of view in terms of hell. And so every time Jesus quotes or every time Jesus says the word Gehenna, every single time in the New Testament, he quotes Jeremiah, just so you know that he's in the line of Jeremiah. And then it's fascinating that in the book of Acts, which contains all the early major sermons, hell is not even mentioned once, at all. And so it's like, okay, it's obviously not Dante's Infernal, And so, if we want to have a conversation about eternal conscious torment, let's do that, because it's got major problems. You know, what do you do with the unborn? What do you do with the mentally ill? You know, what do you do with those who have never heard? All of those things, which, you know, and I know some of the classic conversations with regard to it, because I learned them in seminary and Bible school. there are some issues with regard to that. So for me, hell, however you, even if it's a place, a destination, it is not one in which you are, you can escape the love of God. God is good. God creates very good creation. And so can you point me to a passage in Scripture that shows somebody moving from hell to heaven? Like, what gives us the impression that we can go from one to the other? You know, the passage says that it's appointed to a man once to die, and then the judgment, right? In the passages that talk about hell, you know, it talks about the... Sorry, go ahead. David Morgan Sorry, the word judgment is a singular event. Rather than, this is a God. who is going to separate in your heart and life the distinction between that which is true and that which is false. So you're right, I am referring to that, but the question is, why am I referring to it as a singular event? And part of it is that very passage that I quoted, that it's appointed to a man once to die, and then the judgment. And so, yes, it's true that God's a God that's making judgments, you know, like all the time. Yeah, I would agree with that. However, this is referring to a single moment where the books are going to be opened and you're going to give an account of your life for every word that's been said. And so at that point, it's appointed to a man once to die and then the judgment, not to die once and then to be judged, judged, judged, judged over and over again. It's a one-time scenario. So what are the ages of judgment? Well, that might be a question that Jonathan can answer at the beginning of next week's show because, unfortunately, if this were a true podcast, we could just go on until we're all done and we're blue in the face. But we have time constraints because it's also a radio show, so we're going to have to wrap it up here. William Paul Young, author of The Shack, is on the show today. Jonathan Schweitzer is the other voice you've been hearing. I'm Troy Skinner. This is the Faith Debate on 930 WFMD. Again, if you've missed last week's show or this week's show in its entirety and you want to hear them, go on the website and you can hear a podcast of last week's show now and give us a couple of days and you'll be able to hear a podcast of today's show. Usually it's up and running by Tuesday morning, so don't hold me to that, but sometimes even Monday afternoon, so you never know. It's up to our webmaster. I have no control over that. And it's up to God's will, let's be honest, right? Until next week, 167 and a half hours from right now. God bless.