Cactus Game Design Message Boards

The author of this book came here to Montreat College today.  I must say his story of how he got the book published and into so many hands and subsequently onto the best seller list at number one was really cool.  If you ever get the chance to hear him speak I would definitely take it.  He is an excelent speaker.

A good deal of the theology presented in the book is not at all supported by Scripture regardless of Calvinist or Armenian theology.  However, he still tells the story very well.

I hated this book. I guess it's the difference between Ariminian and Calvinist... I felt like he was trying to speak for God at times...

I'll assume it's written by an Arminian?

Seriously, if you can't enjoy a book because of someone's religious leanings WITHIN Christianity, how can you ever enjoy a book by someone who is not a Christian? Same deal.

Based on hearing the man speak as well as discussing it in class, I get the feeling that he has a more universalist theological leaning.  However, I don't know for certain.  What is for sure is that God moved in this man's life, he is a Christian as far as any man can tell.  The interesting thing about the book is that it started as a Christmas gift to his children.  He had no intentions of being a famous author.  He printed it at an Office Depot, 15 copies.  I believe it was to 6 children and then to family and friends.  It got passed around and eventually made its way into the hands of a couple of guys looking for movie scripts.  They ended up making their own publishing company so they could print the book.  Its now sold millions of copies and has been #1 on the best seller list for 40 weeks or something like that.  W.P. Young gets hundreds of e-mails every day telling him how the book changed people lives.  Even though it is certainly not anywhere near theological sound, it is making a positive impact.

I never finished the book, actually.

As for the universalist thing, C.S. Lewis was a pseudo-universalist, too.

Quote

This causes me to pose the question of should we, as Christians, be okay with the fact that people's lives are being changed in a "positive" way by a book that is not theologically sound? In other words, do we allow for a sacrifice of some of the theological foundations of our beliefs in God so that people will accept Christ? What happens if these people start teaching things from this book as completely Bible-based and so begin to mislead others? I believe this is a dangerous borderline to come near, and I welcome anyone's well-thought out opinions on these questions.

The same thought was discussed in one of my classes here at Montreat.  It is definitely a danger, but I feel like the vast majority of people who have sound theological and orthodox doctrine are able to teach those who misunderstand.  This is predicated on the idea that people who are changed by the book and begin to seek Christ will do so while also invovling themselves in a church.  It is in the church where they can be pastored and taught soundly rather than through reading this piece of fiction.  That is also something very important to remeber, the book is fiction.  The one big danger with it is that Young doesn't find or encourage going to church when in reality being part of a church as a faith community is one of the most important parts of being able to grow in faith in Christ.  So, yes, I do think there is a danger but I do not feel that many people will be able to get along in their Christian walk without coming up against the clear theological falacies that are presented in the book.

What exactly were the fallacies again? It was a really long time ago.

Here's a joke:

What do you call a Jewish man, a Chinese woman, and a Black lady walking into a bar?
The trinity!

Colin,
One of the professors at my school wrote a short paper about it that highlights the fallacies.  Would you like me to send it to you?

Indeed I would, I'd love to be on the majority side of a board discussion for once, haha.

I don't agree with his first two points, but I do agree with his last point.

To address the bit about the "law", doesn't reformed theology preach sanctification happens through grace, not through trying to fulfill a law?

To address the bit about religion, coming from the non-denominational background that I did, the criticisms of religion seem valid to me. If you've ever read Kierkegaard, he's kind of the root of all Christian "existentialism" (as he was the "father of existentialism").

As for his address of the problem of evil, I somewhat agree with him. I definitely don't agree with Mack's view of it.

I think that the problem of evil has to do with transvaluation; this is in the Kierkegaardian sense, not the Nietzschean sense.

According to Kierkegaardian ethics, everyone is in three spheres of life: asthetic, moral, and "religious" (not the modern connotation).
The person in the aesthetic sphere defines right and wrong by pleasure v.s. pain (which contradicts Paul's idea of "rejoicing in suffering"). This is kind of a utilitarian ethic.
The person in the moral sphere lives by a moral code (contrary to Pauline "all things are permissable"). This is a Deontological ethic, similar to the Jewish law.
The person in the religious sphere lives by faith and has no morals of his own; his morals are subjective to God alone. Kierkegaard uses the story of Abraham and Isaac to illustrate this in his book Fear and Trembling (the first two are summed up in Kierkegaard's Either/Or).

The aesthetic person fails because all pleasure is temporary. The moral person fails because his morality fails. The person of faith cannot fail because he has neither of these moralities; only faith in God.

It's too long, I'll post it in a separate topic.

For the convenience of those in discussion:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14831.0