The Pantheism of Roman Catholicism

C.S. Lewis noted some time ago that in the end, only Christianity stood against pantheism.

Well, our friend Viisaus posted a whole bunch of items yesterday in the comments that illustrated the influence that pantheism has in the Roman church:

Viisaus said...

"David, one of the things I have noticed in my reading of Ratzinger is that he is functionally a pantheist. This is the unity that he desires. That is, we all get "fused" into God -- I believe that is the term he used in Called to Communion."


It seems that these Sedevacantists agree - rejecters of Vatican II can often provide best evidence for modern RC apostasy:

http://traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_120_RatzTeilhardl.html
(citing Ratzinger's words last year):

Benedict XVI praises the cosmic liturgy of Teilhard de Chardin

"The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host."

2:21 AM, October 28, 2010


Viisaus said...

A sharp-eyed critic like Isaac Taylor foresaw the coming of Vatican II spirit already back in 1849. He was able to predict how the RCC would eventually respond to the modernist challenge: by pantheistic pandering.

Taylor noticed how the Newmanian doctrine of development had an inherently "evolutionist" flavor, and could even foresee the rise of pantheist Jesuits like Teilhard de Chardin:

http://www.archive.org/details/loyolajesuitism00taylgoog

"Loyola & Jesuitism in Its Rudiments"
pp. 372-374

"It would be by no means difficult to sketch the outlines of a New Faith, well adapted to the prevailing notions and habits of Continental communities. Such a faith would retain everything belonging to Romanism that is sensuous and imaginative; — everything of costume and of ceremonial that does not offend good taste, or draw upon itseif sarcasm: it would retain, moreover, a shadowy, though not a dogmatic, orthodoxy: it might perhaps permit a Nicene profession to be "sung," but would never allow it to be "said."

The lately-divulged doctrine of "Development" would seem as if it had been now announced as the requisite preliminary to such a relinquishment of ancient practices and principles as we are supposing to be probable. It is manifest that if "the Church" be endowed with a creative or re-creative vital energy, enabling and authorizing it, from age to age, to evolve what is new in belief or in worship, or to bring to light what had previously slumbered in darkness; if, for example, the Church of the ninth Century ought to be thought of as an authentic product of the church of the third, although marked by new features — then this same vital force — this power of adaptation, may, as ages roll on, and as human reason ripens, show its energies in the mode of absorption or retrenchment. During the ninth Century the Church put forth a verdant top, darkening all the skies; but in the nineteenth century the tree may call in its sap from its luxuriant head, while it strikes its roots far in to a new soil.

If, in this age of reason, certain dogmas or modes of worship may seem to have fulfilled their intention, and to have become encumbrances, rather than aids, why may not the inherent "Development" power rescind, withdraw, remove, such adjuncts? It is not easy to see what difficulty, either logical or theoretic, stands in the way to prevent the Church's faculty of development from now shifting its position, and acting as a faculty of abrogation. Once it put its right hand forth to bring from its treasury things new: henceforward it will be pulling its left hand from its bosom, to withdraw these worn and faded articles from their places. In a rude age the Church — always wise in her day — became flagrantly polytheistic: in a philosophic, or rather a scientific age, the same Church, equally wise, will become pantheistic.

This is the very result that might seem highly probable, as consequent upon a well-calculated endeavor to reinstate spiritual power throughout Europe, by means of an alliance between that scientific pantheism which, at this time, is the prevalent belief of the continental nations, and the Church, professing its faculty of adaptation to the changing aspects of the world. Let the Church absorb or abrogate what, although held to be true and good, as related to an age long gone by, is now felt to be redundant, and which will not amalgamate with the present scientific temper of mankind. Nothing would be needed beyond that which such a faculty of adaptation might supply, for compiling a creed, and for instituting a worship, well adapted to the taste and propensities of the European Continental nations.

If an enterprise of this sort were seriously thought of, the Jesuit body might consider itself to be peculiarly qualified for attempting the task."

2:50 AM, October 28, 2010


Viisaus said...

One really does not even need to dig very deep to see the brazen pantheistic-evolutionist attitudes of the modern Vatican:

http://www.christorchaos.com/RevealingHisInnerTeilhardYetAgain.htm

"Though offered only in passing, and doubtless subject to overinterpretation, Benedict's line nevertheless triggered headlines in the Italian press about a possible "rehabilitation" of Teilhard, sometimes referred to as the "Catholic Darwin." That reading seemed especially tempting since, as a consummate theologian, Benedict is aware of the controversy that swirls around Teilhard, and would thus grasp the likely impact of a positive papal reference.

At the very least, the line seemed to offer a blessing for exploration of the late Jesuit's ideas. That impression appeared to be confirmed by the Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, who said afterward, "By now, no one would dream of saying that [Teilhard] is a heterodox author who shouldn't be studied.""

4:18 AM, October 28,

I'd like to say, Viisaus, thanks for what you add here.

Good Morning, Pope Starshine, Part 3: Michael Horton’s New Systematic Theology Would Categorize You as a Panentheist.

Here is Ratzinger in 1969, from “Introduction to Christianity”:

...If Jesus is the exemplary man, in whom the true figure of man, God’s intention for him, comes fully to light, then he cannot be destined to be merely an absolute exception, a curiosity, in which God demonstrates to us just what is possible. His existence concerns all mankind. The New Testament makes this perceptible by calling him an “Adam”; in the Bible this word expresses the unity of the whole creature “man”, so that one can speak of the biblical idea of a “corporate personality” [emphasis added]. So if Jesus is called “Adam” this implies that he is intended to gather the whole creature “Adam” in himself. But this means that the reality which Paul calls, in a way that is largely incomprehensible to us today, the “body of Christ” is an intrinsic postulate of this existence, which cannot remain an exception but must “draw to itself” the whole of mankind (cf John 12:32).(176)

It must be regarded as an important service of Teilhard de Chardin’s that he re-thought these ideas from the angle of the modern view of the world and, in spite of a not entirely unobjectionable tendency towards the biological approach, nevertheless on the whole grasped them correctly and in any case made them accessible once again. Let us listen to his own words: the human monad [monad being Ratzinger’s word; Teilhard de Chardin’s words are in “quotes”] “can only be absolutely itself by ceasing to be alone”. In the background is the idea that in the cosmos, alongside the two orders or classes of the infinitely small and the infinitely big, there is a third order, which determines the real drift of evolution, namely the order of the infinitely complex. It is the real goal of the ascending powers of growth or becoming; it reaches a first peak in the genesis of living things and then continues to advance to those highly complex creations which give the cosmos a new centre: [emphasis added] “Imperceptible and accidental as the position which they hold may be in the history of the heavenly bodies, in the last analysis the planets are nothing less than the vital points of the universe. It is through them that the axis now runs, on them henceforth concentrated the main effort of an evolution aiming principally at the production of large molecules.”

The examination of the world by the dynamic criterion of complexity thus signifies “a complete inversion of values. A reversal of the perspective.”

But let us return to man. He is so far the maximum in complexity. But even he as a mere man-monad cannot represent an end; his growth itself demands a further advance in complexity: “At the same time as he represents an individual centred on himself (that is, a ‘person’), does not Man also represent an element in relation to some new and higher synthesis?” That is to say, man is indeed on the one hand already an end that can no longer be reversed, no longer be melted down again; yet in the juxtaposition of individual men he is not yet at the goal but shows himself to be an element, as it were, that longs for a whole which will embrace it without destroying it. Let us look at a further text, in order to see in what direction such ideas lead: “Contrary to the appearances still accepted by Physics, the Great Stability is not below – in the infra-elemental – but above – in the ultra-synthetic.”

So it must be discovered that “If things hold and hold together, it is only by virtue of ‘complexification’, from the top”. I think we are confronted here with a crucial statement; at this point the dynamic view of the world destroys the positivistic conception, so near to all of us, that stability is located only in the “mass”, in hard material. That the world is in the last resort put together and held together “from above” here becomes evident in a way that is particularly striking because we are so little accustomed to it.

Then in July 2009, in an address in Aosta, Italy, Benedict again, as pope, cites Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his pantheistic vision, far beyond what was said in “Introduction to Christianity” and claims that “the cosmos becomes a living host” (From this post.):

“Let Your Church offer herself to You as a living and holy sacrifice”. This request, addressed to God, is made also to ourselves. It is a reference to two passages from the Letter to the Romans. We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice, and by transforming our world, give it back to God. The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.

Now, a brief selection from Michael Horton’s new Systematic Theology is online. He provides these definitions for both “Pantheism” and “Panentheism”:

A. Pantheism and Panentheism: Overcoming Estrangement

The first grand narrative erases (or tends to erase) the infinite-qualitative distinction between God and creatures. Narrated in myriad myths across many cultures, this is the story of the ascent of the soul — that divine part of us, which has somehow become trapped in matter and history. Although it originates in dualism — a stark (even violent) opposition between finite and infinite, matter and spirit, time and eternity, humanity and God, the goal is to reestablish the unity of all reality. In some versions, only that which is infinite, spiritual, eternal, and divine is real, so all else perishes or is somehow elevated into the upper world. Nevertheless, the goal is to lose all particularity and diversity in the One, which is Being itself….

Within the history of Western Christianity there have been tendencies among some mystics to move in a pantheistic direction. An extreme example is the fourteenth- century mystic Meister Eckhart, who wrote in a characteristic sermon, “To the inward-turned man all things have an inward divinity. . . . Nothing is so proper to the intellect, nor so present and near as God.” The connection between rationalism and mysticism is as old as Platonism itself. This outer-inner dualism has characterized much of radical mysticism in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, as well as in Sufi Islam and Jewish Kabbalism. This trajectory continued in radical Protestantism from the Anabaptists to the early Enlightenment. It is especially evident in the philosophy of Benedict Spinoza (1632-77), which was revived in German Romanticism and American Transcendentalism. Its influence is evident in the dominant forms of theological liberalism and especially today in New Age and neopagan spiritualities.…

Some have tried to blend pantheism (“all is divine”) with belief in a personal God (theism). Often identified as panentheism (“all-within-God”), this view holds that “God” or the divine principle transcends the world, although God and the world exist in mutual dependence. In varying degrees of explicit dependence, panentheism is the working ontology of process theology and the theologies of Teilhard de Chardin, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Jürgen Moltmann among many others, especially those working at the intersection of theology and the philosophy of science. Some panentheists envision the world as the body of God. (Michael Horton, “The Christian Faith,” Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, ©2011, pgs 36-39.)

The super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority, part 2

Paul Hoffer was kind enough to comment at length on my last post, but unfortunately between his original comment that spawned the aforementioned post and his comments on the post, he forgot his own argument, and ironically in many places ends up affirming my own point.  For that, I thank him for tacitly disavowing his argument.  I commend the practice, of course, for while it is a common argument, it is also a very bad and stupid one.

Here is my response, first to another commenter named Space Bishop:


Space Bishop,

catholics have disagreement over the meaning of various things the magisterium teaches?

First off, you have to recognise that the Mag is a bit of a phantom target.  They avoid sticking their neck out very far on many topics, so as to avoid getting pinned down.
The problem for RCs is that this renders most of their claims to infallible guidance totally meaningless - if the infall guide doesn't speak, it's useless.
Anyway, your list, off the top of my head - evolution/not-evolution, inerrancy/errancy, Franciscan/Dominican, church should be poor or rich, heliocentrism/geocentrism, whether EOx are heretics and schismatics or not, whether Prots are heavenbound or not, sedevacantism vs not, Augustinian predestination vs not, whether Trent closed the Canon of Scr or not, whether the Shroud of Turin is authentic, whether Luther was right about the bondage of the will, whether logic is a good measure of truth, and quite a lot of others.  There are far, far too many to keep going listing them out.  Bottom line - you need to deal with reality, not the lines that Catholic Answers feeds you.


you have listed are not disagreements about what the magisterium teaches but rather examples of catholics who simply say that the magisterium is wrong.

That's a distinction w/o a difference.  Mere semantics.  If the RCC wants to put some teeth on its Magisterial teaching, maybe it should start excomming dissidents.


is not the magisterium better as if such a case of contradictory interpretations of the magisteriums teachings arose the magisterium alone can say " A is right and B is wrong" and if disagreements arose as to what is the correct interpretation of that ruling another ruling could be issued and so on and so on.

And when has the Mag done that?  How often?  In fact, often it goes to serious lengths to be unclear and obscure.



Protestants however dont have recourse to this

Yep, poor us.  Guess we'll just have to read the Bible or something.


Paul Hoffer,
I'm sorry you didn't understand that I parotted (Edit misspelling: parroted) you for a specific reason, that is, to show how the same "problem" of individual fallible interpretation is true for your position as well.  Positing a Mag only moves the question back a step, which is why I'm saying you'd need a super-super-Mag to fix the problem.  But then you'd need aNOTHER level back to which to move the question, and on and on unto infinity.


there is much about the Scriptures that is perspicuous, just not everything.

Yes, not everything in the Scr is perspicuous.
What's really funny about this is that the RC doctrines related to salvation and election and all that are pretty much impenetrable in their internal inconsistency, biblical illiteracy, and tradition-bound-ness. As James White likes to say: Give me Romans 8 anytime over the code of Canon Law.


. A written document, whether it is the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures or a Magisterial document interpreting the Word of God, do not “arbitrate” disputes. Rather, it the Church itself that safeguards and interprets the Scriptures that does the arbitrating.

Through written documents.  Thus you bolster my point.  Thanks!
Also, in oral proclamations, alot of the time they get written down.  Then, see above.
Oral proclamations, BTW, are not immune to this.  So you need a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-...



SHOW ME as Space Bishop asked where a Magisterial document

Now you're moving the goalposts.  You had originally made PEOPLE AT LARGE the measure of truth, and now you want me to show two Mag docs that disagree.  I probably could, and I know Carrie could easily, but that's not what we're discussing.


So rather than relying on my authority, I would rest my case on the Scriptures and how the Church interprets them.

Unless the Mag infallibly interped those Scr psgs, you're relying on private fallible interp in order to prove your position that the Mag is necessary to correct for people's private fallible interps.  Something is ironic about that...


It must be noted that Catholics do not put the Magisterium over the Word of God, rather the Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God

So why does it get the Gospel wrong?  And posit Purgatory?  And the Immaculate Conception of Mary?  And the Assumption of Mary?  And worshiping pictures of dead people?  And the treasury of merit and indulgences? And other examples of exceeding what is written all the time?



The Magisterium fulfills this role under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority. (Thus, bringing up stuff about how some Catholics are disobedient by advocating pro-choice agendas is a red herring.)

Since YOU were the one who introduced the idea that a teaching authority is apparently to be measured by the laity's obedience to it, that would be YOUR red herring.
And again, thank you for acknowledging that this argument is stupid.


Unlike Protestantism which bolds that each person is his own magisterial authority

How do strawmen help the Roman cause?  Is it Mag teaching that strawmen are the best strategy?  Is that in Lumen Gentium too?


Thus, the scenario you raise does not occur.

One wonders how you make it work every day with your head stuck that far in the clouds.


Besides, such argumentation is not really atheistic, but is more pantheistic as Whateverman is merely saying that as far as he is concerned he is his own god.

For those who've not spent much time arguing with atheists (as Paul apparently hasn't), atheism IS pantheism and vice versa, esp when it comes to questions of authority.
Which makes it worse for him - now the RC position isn't just echoing atheism, but pantheism as well.  Wow, have fun with that.


Frankly as a person who adheres to the notion of “Contra factum non valet argumentum,” I reject your assertion that logical argumentation is the measure of truth.

Ah, then Jell-O has farley bones and the further they 9 the much.
That reminds me; maybe we should add this to the long list of confusion and internal dissent within Rome - whether logic is the measure of truth or not.

Good Morning Pope Starshine, part 2

Why do popes write the things they do? It stands to reason that you don’t work all your life to grow up and be pope, just to say things and have them be ignored. No, you want to be pope so you can command obedience!

Pius XII, himself a pope (who knew the difference between an ex cathedra pronouncement and an ordinary one, because he had done both, only our fusion into unity with him, makes us bearers of the promise.” (33) This goes far beyond the Protestant notion of Union with Christ. That union is accomplished through the Holy Spirit – and the New Man.

But fast forward to July 2009, in an address in Aosta, Italy, Benedict again, as pope, cites Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his pantheistic vision, far beyond what was said in “Introduction to Christianity” and claims that “the cosmos becomes a living host”:

“Let Your Church offer herself to You as a living and holy sacrifice”. This request, addressed to God, is made also to ourselves. It is a reference to two passages from the Letter to the Romans. We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice, and by transforming our world, give it back to God. The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.

In other words, “we are the world.”

Paul’s letters frequently follow the pattern of theology --> application, and his letter to the Romans follows this same pattern. Here is the citation of the selection that the pope is quoting:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Schreiner, in his commentary, does not see pantheism in this text. “Paul is not merely saying that [these] sacrifices are spiritual in nature. His point is that it is eminently reasonable, given the mercies of God, for believers to dedicate themselves wholly to God.” (Commentary on Romans, 644-645). “The worship described does not relate to public assemblies but to the yielding of one’s whole life to God in the concrete reality of everyday existence.”

I’ve written about this, too, in a post entitled The Real Body of Christ.

Here, Ratzinger openly embraces the Platonic concept of “body” and rejects Scriptural meaning as he openly states, “Communion means the fusion of existences. Just as in the taking of nourishment the body assimilates foreign matter to itself, and is thereby enabled to live, in the same way my “I” is “assimilated” to that of Jesus, it is made similar to him in an exchange that increasingly breaks through the lines of division.”

Now, it could not be more clear, in analyzing the texts of Paul’s letters, that this is in no way what he is talking about. But the Roman self-infatuation, in its desires to perpetuate its grandiose claims about itself, effectively repeats the promise of Satan: “You will be like God.”

I’ll refer you to that link for more about this topic, but for now, it should be enough to provide a biblical picture of our future:

See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased for God
persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth.”

Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they were saying:

“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and praise!”

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.

It will be time for Lewis’s “Great Dance”. No pantheism allowed.

Resurrection of the dead is only “symbolically” proclaimed in the Bible, says this author.

Here’s a little word picture for consideration especially by our Roman Catholic friends for whom “intellectual inconsistency” is a dirty word and a dangerous concept.

I have come across this, because it was brought to my attention by a Reformed brother who I met through a Reformed discussion board. He was concerned that this particular author (whom I will cite at length) simply did not believe in the Resurrection. Not the Resurrection of Christ, nor the physical resurrection of the body at the end of the age.

Here is a key passage from our author in question:

The foregoing reflections may have made a little clearer what is involved in the biblical pronouncements about the resurrection: their essential content is not the conception of a restoration of bodies to souls after a long interval: their aim is to tell men that they, themselves, live on; not by virtue of their own power but because they are known and loved by God in such a way that they can no longer perish.

In contrast to the dualistic conception of immortality expressed in the Greek body-soul schema, the biblical formula of immortality through awakening is trying to impart a collective and dialogic conception of immortality: the essential part of man, the person remains; that which has ripened in the course of this earthly existence of corporeal spirituality and spiritualized corporeality goes on existing in a different fashion. It goes on existing because it lives in God’s memory. And because it is the man himself who will live, not an isolated soul, the element of human fellowship is also part of the future; for this reason the future of the individual man will only then be full when the future of humanity is fulfilled.

Now, this seems to me as a classic liberal re-definition of the physical resurrection, and a lot like a kind of pantheism. But I don’t want to rush to judgment. And of course, in the spirit of this blog, we of course intend to provide context, and lots of it.

My dilemma is that I have not read huge amounts from this author, though I likely will read more in the future.

But I do have one of the books in question, and so I want to back up from that previous paragraph, a few pages, and to provide, at some length, the “foregoing reflections” from this author, just to be sure we are not misquoting him, or misunderstanding him, or taking him out of context.

We have discovered anew the indivisibility of man; we live our corporeality with a new intensity and feel it as the indispensable mode of realization of the one being of man. From this angle we can understand afresh the biblical message, which promises immortality not to a separated soul but to the whole man. Such feelings have in this [20th] century made evangelical theology in particular turn emphatically against the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul, which is wrongly regarded as a Christian idea too. In reality, so it is said, this idea expresses a thoroughly un-Christian dualism; the Christian faith knows only of the waking of the dead by God’s power. But doubts arise at once here: the Greek doctrine of immortality may well be problematical, but is not the biblical assertion still more incapable of fulfillment for us? The unity of man, fine, but who can imagine, on the basis of our present-day image of the world, a resurrection of the body?

“The unity of man, fine.” So this concept of “the indivisibility of man,” “the unity of man,” is what is established by this writer in what precedes. And then, he begins to discuss what implications this has for the Christian doctrine of “the resurrection of the body.” Continuing with this thought:

This resurrection would also imply – or so it seems, at any rate – a new heaven and a new earth; it would require immortal bodies needing no sustenance, and a completely different condition of matter. But is this not all completely absurd, quite contrary to our understanding of matter and its modes of behavior, and therefore hopelessly mythological? Well I think that in fact one can only arrive at an answer if one enquires carefully into the real intentions of the biblical statement and at the same time considers anew the relation between the biblical and the Greek ideas.

Now this is an idea that we can all embrace. We must “enquire carefully into the real intentions of the biblical statement” no doubt mentioned above that immortality is promised “not to a separated soul but to the whole man.” Again, not having read this author, I’m not sure what he means by this statement, but if we assume his prior analysis about “the whole man” is correct, then what follows is certain to be understandable in that light. Right?

For their encounter with each other [Greek and biblical ideas about immortality of man and the resurrection of the body] has modified both conceptions and thus overlaid the original intentions of both approaches with a new combined view which we must first remove if we want to find our way back to the beginning. First of all, the hope of the resurrection of the dead simply represents the basic form of the biblical hope of immortality; it appears in the New Testament not really as a supplement to a preceding and independent immortality of the soul but as the fundamental statement on the fate of man.

Amen and amen!

There were, it is true, in late Jewish teachings hints of immortality on the Greek pattern, and this was probably one of the reasons why very soon the all-embracing scope of the idea of resurrection in the Graeco-Roman world was no longer grasped. Instead, the Greek notion of the immortality of the soul and the biblical message of the resurrection of the dead was each understood as half the answer to the question of the fate of man and the two were added together. It was thought that the already existing Greek fore-knowledge about the immortality of the soul had added to it by the Bible the revelation that at the end of the world bodies would be awoken too, to share henceforth for ever the fate of the soul – damnation or bliss.

As opposed to this, we must grasp the fact that originally it was not a question of two complementary ideas; on the contrary, we are confronted with two different total views, which cannot simply be added together: the image of man, of God and of the future, is in each case quite different, and thus at bottom each of the two views can only be understood as an attempt at a total answer to the question of human fate.

The Greek conception is based on the idea that man is composed of two intrinsically alien substances, one of which (the body) perishes, while the other (the soul) is in itself imperishable and therefore goes on existing in its own right independent of any other beings. Indeed, it was only in the separation from its essentially alien body, so it was thought, that the soul came into its own.

So here we have from our author an articulation of “the Greek conception” of the immortality of the soul. This seems accurate enough. Now for his analysis of the biblical conception:

The biblical train of thought, on the other hand, presupposes the undivided unity of man [there we have that idea again, from above]; for example, Scripture contains no word denoting only the body (separated and distinguished from the soul), while conversely in the vast majority of cases the word soul too means the whole corporeally existing man; the few places where a different view can be discerned hover to a certain extent between Greek and Hebrew thinking and in any case by no means abandon the old view. The awakening of the dead (not of bodies!) of which Scripture speaks is thus concerned with the salvation of the one, undivided man, not just with the fate of one (so far as possible secondary) half of man [italics and parentheses in original]. It now also becomes clear that the real heart of the faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of the body, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible. What then, is the real content of the hope symbolically proclaimed in the Bible in the shape of the resurrection of the dead? I think that this can best be worked out by means of a comparison with the dualistic conception of ancient philosophy [bold emphasis added].

Aha, here is a reason to be cautious with this writer.

In conjunction with the statement approaching pantheism that I noted at the beginning, this statement too ought to raise some red flags, especially for our perceptive readers (Sean Patrick, Paul Hoffer, David Waltz) who do not tolerate “inconsistency”. (Of course, these guys, being as perceptive and as well-read as they claim to be, almost certainly have seen through my ploy by this point, and are ready with exceptions to their doctrine of “inconsistency”.)

Like the fabled Peter Lampe, who does not believe that Paul wrote the “Pastoral Epistles,” this writer says that “the hope of the resurrection of the dead” is only “symbolically proclaimed” in the Bible.

We should rightfully be cautious of this man who thinks of the resurrection of the dead as being merely “symbolically proclaimed in the Bible.”

More to follow.

Reviewing The Shack

A friend from church wrote a brief review of The Shack that touches on some key points as to why we should be cautious about this book. Or maybe even disregard it all together. He gave me permission to share this review.

I also want to note that you audio review by Michael Youseff called Uncovering The Shack.

SHACK ATTACK - OR A CALL TO DISCERNMENT?
"Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right." -Charles Spurgeon



At the encouragement of friends, I recently read The Shack by William P. Young. A national bestseller widely embraced by some churches and many professing Christians, The Shack is a work of fiction that embodies lengthy conversations between the main character, a man named Mack, and three persons who represent a version of the Trinity.

Frankly, I was dismayed at many messages conveyed by The Shack and have been surprised that many of my Christian friends have read the book uncritically, finding it a charming and heart-warming story. Some say that it is unfair to have theological expectations since the book is fiction. However, The Shack is marketed as a spiritually transforming book, and it being received that way by many.

It seems to me that a more critical reading is required of The Shack than a secular work of fiction because the author creates characters that purport to speak as God and to guide Mack on his spiritual journey. The fictional story becomes a device to have characters representing the Godhead explain a particular theology. As believers, our spiritual antennas should be fully deployed when we approach such a book.

In The Shack, God the Father appears to Mack as a large, jovial black woman whom Mack calls “Papa.” The Holy Spirit appears as a small Asian woman, and Jesus appears as a Jewish man. Putting aside gender confusion and the attempt to give human form and voice to the Father and Holy Spirit (“no man hath seen God at any time,” John 1:8), it is critical for the Christian reader to carefully consider the message author Young has those voices bring and to weigh their message in the light of the clear teaching of the Bible. That is to exercise discernment, a requirement – not an option – for Christians.

When we read The Shack with discernment, I submit that we find many distortions and untruths. Consider just a few of the words Young puts in the mouths of his created Trinity (my comments are within the parentheses):

Papa to Mack: “We [the Trinity] have limited ourselves out of respect for you.” (Isn’t this Open Theism – God choosing to limit Himself?)

Jesus: “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things . . .” (Isn’t this Pantheism – God in all things?)

Sarayu (Young’s Sanscrit name for the Holy Spirit): “We [the Trinity] carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them.” (“Neither are your ways my ways . . . my ways are higher than your ways.” Isaiah 55:8-9. Does God respect man’s choices, or does His Word demand that we repent of our ways and that we enter His narrow way?)

Sarayu: “Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence . . . Light and Good actually exist.” (Really? Does the Bible teach that evil has no actual existence? Was the biblical Jesus aware of that when He conversed with Satan in the desert temptation?)

Papa: “I don’t need to punish people for sin Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (Certainly there are consequences of our sin which we realize in this life and which impact other people. And certainly God has provided the cure for sin. That “cure” is the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Most certainly there is punishment for sin. Christ suffered the punishment for us. However, the implication of Papa’s statement is that the only punishment for sin is sin’s own punishment in a person’s life. The Bible is clear that punishment for the unredeemed, those who refuse Christ’s atonement, is the sting of spiritual death and eternal separation from God. The Shack makes light work of the cross.)

Young’s Jesus character states that he, Papa, and Sarayu are “indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be . . . . In fact, we [the Trinity] are submitted to you [Mack] in the same way.” (Why, then, did the biblical Jesus submit Himself to the will of His father? Does the Bible teach submission to authority in spiritual and family and secular environments? What do you make of the claim that the Trinity is submitted to us? I believe that Young’s anti-authoritarianism is risky in human terms and that it is blasphemous to attribute such egalitarian sentiments to God.)

When requested by Papa to forgive the murderer of his young daughter, Mack balks. Papa says, “Mack, for you to forgive this man is for you to release him to me and allow me to redeem him.” (So God can only redeem those whom humans have forgiven and have released to God for redemption? The effectiveness of redemption for the unrepentant murderer is to be accomplished with Mack’s participation? Find biblical support for that, my friends!)

Christian, what about this assertion by the Jesus of The Shack? “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” (This is a false Jesus. The Jesus Christ of the Bible does not say that He is the best way, He says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” John 14:16. He is not the best way – He is the only way.)

The Shack evidences a low regard for Scripture. When Mack mentions biblical events or concepts, Papa brushes them off and glibly explains how it really is, thus suggesting that the Bible is the work of man, not the divinely inspired work of God. Yet, some argue that The Shack has value in that it demonstrates a loving God of grace who invites man to a relationship. But it does so with grievous distortions about the nature of God, the nature of the Trinity, the authority of God’s Word, God’s hatred of sin, the requirement of repentance, and the nature of conversion and salvation.

My brothers and sisters, even in reading and discussing a work of fiction, we must be prepared to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and to do so without apology to the world. The Shack may, from its human author’s viewpoint, be in all sincerity intended as an inviting look at a highly relational God, but would you place even a drop of poison in pure water and invite others to drink? As Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said, The Shack “contains undiluted heresy.” Don’t you and I have a responsibility to be equipped to recognize heresy and to shine the light of truth so that we and others are not deceived?

- Wayne Elliott

Download as pdf

p.s. I responded to several of the comments to this review supporting The Shack. The Shack Is Only Fiction?