For those who want to see a review of the shack you can read mine.

Herb says: "Jesus paid the price of satisfying justice", I always wonder about where people find this justice at the cross. Jesus who was innocent was the subject of a plot of certain Jewish leaders who wanted to kill him. They organized a nightime trial which used false informants to lie about Christ and then he ultimately was given over to the Roman authorites to crucify. Where is the justice?

apparently that is not what Peter thought in his first sermon when he said to the people. 

(Acts 3:13 NIV)  The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. Acts 3:14 NIV)  You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. Acts 3:15 NIV)  You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. Acts 3:16 NIV)  By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see. Acts 3:17 NIV)  "Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. Acts 3:18 NIV)  But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer.

Justice? Well it appears Peter did not see it either. Actually few until after the 1100's saw it as justice. It was always atonement however. But then I think that is the amazing part about the Shack despite numerous flaws. It seperates those who think Christianity is tradition from those who see Christianity as a relationship that tradition often interfers with. And that is a very good thing.

Hi Ron: I thought you would take a different tack but I do want to join you in focusing on justice. However, I did not write: "Jesus paid the price of satisfying justice " That would have led us down an unnecessary road that too many are now on. But I did say: Jesus surely settled the justice issue." with a few examples that those who travel down the "price" road should recognize.

Justice is exactly what was at stake in the Great Controversy--who was right about fairness, for example, God or Satan? Was it possible for a man or woman to joyfully obey/keeo/honor laws that Satan said is impossible? Note I said "joyfully!"

I think that majestic chorus of those who proved Satan ultimately wrong understood clearly the issues we are talking about: "Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints!" Rev. 15:3

It was God's "justice" that had been forever established by such evidence. At least it seems to me.  Cheers, Herb

Ella M

I was blessed by this book and believe many others will be also.  The above theological material would sound complicated to the average person, and salvation is simple.  I think changing the theo-verbage of "justice" and "justification" to fairness would help. People understand fairness.  As long as the gospel is made so complicated and hard to get your mind around so that only theologians can "understand" it and have to explain it and debate it, God's message will not get to the world. Perhaps theology is a barrier to the truth as it is in Jesus. 

I have taken many classes in theology from the best, and I find the above not easy to explain.  No matter how it is said, I know that God  in the Trinity is love and is fair.  I don't think traditional Christianity has shown this. 

I read "The Shack" on a recent trip, and was hoping to really enjoy it, as I had heard so much about it.  There were parts of it that were very good, and I appreciated some of the author's thoughts.  I especially appreciated his focus on the Trinity as community.

 What bothered me, however, was what was missing.  Here's a book that is attempting to explain why there is evil and pain in this world, yet it never mentions the enemy.  Pain and death cannot be explained without revealing the father of pain and death.  The author tries to do so anyway, and the result somehow feels empty.  I've found that the Adventist understanding of the Great Controversy theme is the clearest way to understand why there is evil in our world.  I praise God that one day the controversy will be completely ended, and that the enemy will be destroyed, and death and pain with him.  "The former things are all passed away..."

 Thank you, Jesus. 

Herb wrote:

--

Hi Ron: I thought you would take a different tack but I do want to join you in focusing on justice. However, I did not write: "Jesus paid the price of satisfying justice " That would have led us down an unnecessary road that too many are now on. But I did say: Jesus surely settled the justice issue." with a few examples that those who travel down the "price" road should recognize. 

--

Come on Herb the first thing you need to learn about a blog is that your words are right there. So you can't say what you actually wrote is not what you wrote. I think that frequently works when people give speeches or interviews but not so with the written word. That is why I began by quoting what you said. Here is what you said second paragraph from the end.

"Just like we can't have water without the blending of hydrogen and oxygen--the ellipse of truth in understanding "water"--so we have redemption in knowing that (1) Jesus paid the price of satisfying justice and (2) He pledges His presence and power to restore in men and women everything that sin has messed up.  Price and pledge, we can't have one without the other, if we want the water of life."

If you had said Jesus paid the price of condescending to become a man and be abused by sinful men. Yes than you would have and adequate "price" explaination. But as the old saying goes don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining.

Herb wrote:

--

My main point was that "satisfying justice" in The Shack reemphasized the misunderstanding too many have of Jesus paying a "price" to satisfy an offended God. 

--

Well I think you are wrong there also Herb. While practically nothing in your article related anything in the book, you were basing it appears on some interview with the author. The book says very little about atonement. In fact I think most evangelical readers will still see penal/substitutionary atonement in the book. They see the price Jesus paid as out of love, but they don't ask to who the price was paid. The story of the native American maiden who jumps from Multnamah falls to stop the sickness plaqueing the tribe is very consistent with Penal theory. But the book and that story focus mainly on the love of the one offering the sacrifice. I wish the book had been a little more forthcoming about that particular problem with the historical Penal/substitutionary atonement.

  After all Herb they do call it "penal" for a reason. It is certainly a misunderstanding but it is still the basis of Penal/substitutionary atonement which is why the theory should be abandoned as a tradition based middle ages theory.

Yes Bill, so the gift of etenal life is not to important. Well unless the other option is for God to Kill you, then the gift of life is important. That is the gift of life is only important when it is God who kills you, not if sin kills you.

It is a good reason to never let someone explain something that they don't believe...they don't even try to understand just try to spread their propaganda.

Ron said..... "On May 2nd, 2009 RonCorson says: The moral influence is the reconcilliation we accept because of the love revealed through Jesus Christ. I really don't have any idea why you are so confused. But I have written to you many times on the Atomorrow forum and if you have not learned anything there then I doubt you will ever learn. You will just remain with your strawman arguments."

Actually, Ron, you deny that sin is crime and punishment. And this is why you deny a moral law judgment where God does and will decide what punishment is proper based on the degree of guilt and rebellion.

In your theory, such a judgment is not necessary since sin will "take care of itself" and needs no "judgment" by God or anyone to determine what punishment is fair. No one should deny there is a "moral influence" associated with the atonement.

But to use "The moral influence" theory to deny a vicarious atonement related to crime and punishment is not "moral" at all, but actually, "Immoral". If there is no legal basis for a relationship, any activity is immoral. Such as, a man and woman can not have an intimate experience unless they are legally married. So our relationship with God is based on both a legal relationship as well as a moral experience. Jesus died and paid a legal debt to the law.

God's justice is satisfied. While this does not "change God's person", it does "change His mind." His judgment of condemnation is removed for all who believe in Jesus, and opens the door for a moral and intimate spiritual relationship with God. A relationship that God will not enter into unless there is a legal basis for it.

In your theory, there is no need for merit (a legal term) and thus no need for a legal contract or agreement. So, two young people live together and claim they need not get married since they "love" each other and no legal basis for their relationship is needful. But God ordained this system in marriage so we could see that our relationship with Him was on the same principle.

In other words, no legal contract, no viable moral relationship is possible. Such a relationship is called "immoral" and rightly so. Just like your theory of atonement.

Bill Sorensen

About a week ago, my dad said he had read "the shack" and had received a blessing from it.  My dad knows that the doctrine of substitutionary atonement has been a special concern of mine for about the past 5 years, since hearing it openly attacked from an an SDA pulpit in southern California.  Whatever one thinks of substitutionary atonement, the doctrine cannot be abandoned without thoroughly and irretrievably repudiating Scripture (see, Isaiah 53) and the prophetic writings of Ellen White (see, Desire of Ages).  On October 11, 2008, I preached on this topic at the Santa Monica SDA Church.  ( http://www.santamonicasda.org/html/sermons.html)

So I was greatly surprised to see Herb's comments on the theological implications of "the Shack."  I supose I'll have to read it now, but I would hate to discover that the book is subversive of the central doctrine of Christianity, substitutionary atonement. 

However, I've never been comfortable adding the word "penal."  The phase of atonement that Herb calls "what Jesus did for God on the cross" is mysterious enough to avoid characterizing it as penal.  I always thought the penal part was the burning, and Christ did not actually bear that for the redeemed; rather He made it possible for that to be transferred from the redeemed back onto Satan.  (Some Adventists are uncomfortable with this doctrine, but Ellen White teaches it, and it is by far the best interpretation of the scapegoat ritual on the day of Atonement. (Lev. 16).)  Regardless what one thinks of "penal", however, substitutionary atonement is taught very clearly in Scripture, beginning with the sanctuary services and continuing all the way to the "Lamb of God" in Revelation.

UPDATE:  After spending a couple of hours reading reviews of "The Shack" at Amazon, especially the negative reviews (there are almost 500 one star reviews), I feel a bit sheepish.  Obviously, "the Shack" has many severe theological shortcomings, among which its breezy position on the atonement is barely even noticeable.   

Bill, I'm not sure what you thought I was saying, or why we might disagree.  After reading the Amazon reviews, I realized "The Shack" had such severe theological problems that worrying about its implications on substitutionary atonement is like worrying about how the deck chairs were arranged on Titanic.  "The Shack" is not an Adventist book, and I would oppose its endorsement by Adventists.