Sorry, I'm confused... If you already knew that it wasn't actual worms, why did you use it as an example of an animal's afterlife?

It was meant as an example of where God uses animals in spiritual terms as an example of something completely unrelated to actual animals. Many people seem to think that because scripture records God returning on a white horse that this indicates there are horses in heaven. In fact, it doesn't, it is symbolic of God's royal status and nobility, and has nothing to do with actual horses, just as this passage had nothing to do with actual worms.

As Wolfy pointed out, all the animals will be transformed.

Will be, or could be? Let's not go making facts where there are only speculations. There is no scripture that absolutely records that animals will go to heaven, and it seems He went to great trouble to account in detail the end times, even to the point of describing which parts of the earth would be destroyed first, and by which elements...I just think He might have mentioned it at least once, don't you think?

It's just one of those debatable cases where some people are on one side of the argument, and other people are on the other side. It doesn't mean everyone on a certain side is elevating animals.

That's true, but consider what it is that makes you want to believe that animals go to heaven? Is it purely academic, or is it based on the fact that you'd rather see a dearly departed pet in heaven? Nine times out of ten, it is the latter that motivates this conversation. I have ten pets, currently, and have had up to thirteen at one time, and I am sad to see them go when they go. However, I shed no tears at the thought that my dog of fourteen years will not be in heaven with me. Not because I'm a heartless crule person, but rather because she was a good companion here on earth, which I realize was her one and only purpose, but she was also just a dog and nothing more. Movies and media like "Free Willy", "Air Bud", "Homeward Bound" and the like create human attributes for creatures that were never meant to have them, and therefore, we have factions of people who have misplaced their attachments and therefore, their beliefs.

Drink lots of tea. That always helps me get over flus faster.

Thanks! Will do.

Sorry, I'm confused... If you already knew that it wasn't actual worms, why did you use it as an example of an animal's afterlife?

It was meant as an example of where God uses animals in spiritual terms as an example of something completely unrelated to actual animals. Many people seem to think that because scripture records God returning on a white horse that this indicates there are horses in heaven. In fact, it doesn't, it is symbolic of God's royal status and nobility, and has nothing to do with actual horses, just as this passage had nothing to do with actual worms.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

As Wolfy pointed out, all the animals will be transformed.

Will be, or could be? Let's not go making facts where there are only speculations. There is no scripture that absolutely records that animals will go to heaven, and it seems He went to great trouble to account in detail the end times, even to the point of describing which parts of the earth would be destroyed first, and by which elements...I just think He might have mentioned it at least once, don't you think?

Sorry, I meant "will be, if our theory is correct." Sorry, the way I worded that was confusing.

It's just one of those debatable cases where some people are on one side of the argument, and other people are on the other side. It doesn't mean everyone on a certain side is elevating animals.

That's true, but consider what it is that makes you want to believe that animals go to heaven? Is it purely academic, or is it based on the fact that you'd rather see a dearly departed pet in heaven? Nine times out of ten, it is the latter that motivates this conversation... Movies and media like "Free Willy", "Air Bud", "Homeward Bound" and the like create human attributes for creatures that were never meant to have them, and therefore, we have factions of people who have misplaced their attachments and therefore, their beliefs.

True, that does happen very often. But I can assure you in my case, this is only a matter of belief. For one thing, none of those movies nor anything else, have ever made me think of animals like people. (I actually haven't seen most of those movies anyway. Not a big fan of animal movies) And for another thing, I'm actually not that fond of animals. I mean, they're alright. I've had pets before, and I liked them well enough. But I've usually been more on the side of disliking animals (or just thinking of them as average) rather than liking them. It certainly isn't enough to change my religious/theological beliefs. And I always try to do my best to keep my beliefs and emotions separated anyway.

~Riella

Fantastic! Well, it seems this portion of the conversation has been thoroughly discussed, and all parties have expressed their views with respect to everyone else.

So, does anyone have a new topic they wish to discuss?

Was there ever an outcome to the Rapture issue? I would be interested in returning to that.

(But then, I've made several topic suggestions, they're all laying around.)

Well, here's one idea: devotionals. Good idea? Not-so-good? Or mixed?

Last week, I reviewed (parts one and two) a very, very popular devotional called Jesus Calling. In summary, I wasn't a fan, and not just because it was a devotional but because, in the name of finding "something more" besides the more-sure Word, its author actually writes as Jesus. She takes far too many liberties with Scripture, "making" phrases from the Bible say what their original Author (and authors) didn't mean to say. Also, sadly, she actually takes the wonderful promises of the Word and makes them weaker, or ignores them, or in effect denies the best promise of all: the Gospel.

Anyway, there's a short summary. But it brings up the larger question of whether we rely more on other books instead of the Bible, or to help us understand the Bible better. (For instance, I've begun to think recently that sometimes Christians rely too much on C.S. Lewis instead of Scripture!) What do you think? And have you heard of that devotional?

When it comes to devotionals, commentaries, and leaning on the wisdom of other great men before us, we have to remember one main thing: THEY ARE NOT THE BIBLE!!! Just for example, I've seen several commentaries in Job 40 that suggest the behemoth is a large elephant or hippo, when it is very clear in the passage that its tail swings like a cedar tree of Lebanon. Elephants and hippos have rather flimsy and tiny tails. There are many others. The pastor of the one true mega church in El Paso has a main theme of 'God is on your side'. My pastor does respect him as generally having good solid teaching, but I do not agree with that theme. Joshua asked God which side he was one and God said neither (Josh 5). God wants us to know which side we are on.

And more so, there is the Christian fiction side of things. We have CS Lewis, Tolkien, Peretti, Dekker, Theone, and now even myself. While these fiction stories are often based on Christian themes and used to carry out Christian themes and concepts, they are not the Bible. I've heard several people complain that Peretti's "This Present Darkness" isn't truly Biblically accurate. Peretti simply said it was fiction, not the Bible. I'll say the same thing about my book when questions like that pop up.

I don't have a problem with using devotionals, commentaries, books, and fiction novels to assist us with our studies. But as Paul tells us, don't take their word for it. Test it against the Word. The Bible is our #1 authority, not the other stuff. The other stuff can help and I am by no means advocating to throw it away, but it all must start and begin with the Bible.

Another thing along these lines that I am often skeptical about is theory vs practical. Here on NWeb and many other places, we know the theory left and right but how often due we put that theory into practice? I'm preaching to myself on this one as well. Last semester, I did a fencing presentation for my Intervarsity Chapter and I was discussing the Armor of God. As I demonstrated the use of the epee bell guard and related it to the purposes of the Shield of Faith, one of my main comments is that when troubles come, we hide behind something. Everyone in the group answered that we hide behind God and trust in his word. I agreed that was what we were supposed to do and was great in theory. But how often do we really hide in the strength of our Lord during our troubles? It's often we hide behind our fears of failure, we hide behind our possessions, we hide behind our social life, standing, position, etc. And, still speaking to myself here, many times we need to get out of the books and get out there and put our knowledge to practical use.

I agree. I think devotionals and Christian fiction are fine to read, as long as they don't contradict the Bible. And you have to constantly weigh them against scripture.

A lot of people say The Shack is Biblically incorrect. I haven't read the whole book, but I've read some of it. Can anyone tell me the correct/incorrect parts of it?

~Riella

I too agree. I'm ok with using devotionals/ fiction books only if it stands up the test by placing it against the scripture. Their good to get your mind thinking, but the scripture is the number one place you should go to to know what God says. Also when using such books it's important to keep an eye out for false preachers. I myself tend to stay away from devotionals because it's hard to know why the person was writing it. Was it really for God, or were they just out to get money? But when I can figure it out, and I'm sure that they were doing it for God, I'll listen to what they say. But I still prefer using the Bible first and foremost.

Odd that this topic should surface just now...someone recently asked me if I could recommend a good devotional, and I was at a loss. I never really use them myself, but that's not to say they're a bad idea. I think a lot of devotionals do more trivializing and over-personalizing than they do helpful exposition, but that's not to say they can't be useful; I think a devotional geared more towards encouraging disciplined and structured reading could be very helpful.

I have a big problem with devotionals and/or books that are written from the perspective of God. It just bothers me. Even if the content does not contradict scripture and even supports scripture, It just feels like a huge liberty taking. Just going and pretending to be God as you write? No!

A lot of people say The Shack is Biblically incorrect. I haven't read the whole book, but I've read some of it. Can anyone tell me the correct/incorrect parts of it?

Yup, the Shack is bad news, not dangerous for Biblically discerning readers, worth banning or anything, but utterly useless as both a novel and a source of truth. My friend Becky Miller, on her blog, had a multi-part series about The Shack, and several Speculative Faith contributors have written at length about it. You might also Google for reviews by folks such as Tim Challies.

I haven't read the book all the way through -- and to some that would automatically disqualify me from talking about it. But even one who hasn't read the book can pass along facts about it that one has heard from others who have read the book. Two summers ago, I asked Shack fans over the internet whether what I understood about the book was true -- such as "God" being shown as a girl and saying "sin is its own punishment" and rejecting the idea that God has wrath toward unbelievers. No one ever said I was wrong about thinking this stuff was in The Shack. So I've concluded, then, that it's indeed bad news.

The worst sort of excuse I heard in response was "it's only fiction!" which is both a) an insult to fiction, b) immediately contradicted anyway when the reader defends the book as certainly okay because It Changed My Life. Ha, "but it's only fiction!" What they end up saying is that the end justifies the means: if it made me Feel Good about "God" (which is a made-up perversion of the true God anyway), it must be okay.

Again, like most Christians I could probably read the book without being led into thinking lies about God. And in fact not long ago I thought I would indeed read the book, to learn more about false ideas about God. But then I read most of, well, Jesus Calling instead, and don't need to read The Shack to learn that. Plus, if I want to find out how people have wrong beliefs about God or turn Him into a "God" who mainly serves me rather than me being helpless and needing Him -- in other words, "taming" the Lion -- I don't need to look far beyond my own mind!

I have a big problem with devotionals and/or books that are written from the perspective of God. It just bothers me. Even if the content does not contradict scripture and even supports scripture, It just feels like a huge liberty taking. Just going and pretending to be God as you write? No!

I just had to quote that, then grin and applaud, and yell with a Southern Baptist accent: Ayyyy-men!

As I personally don't do devotional, but I will read fiction, I'll use Peretti's This Present Darkness as my example. There are parts to the novel that are perhaps Biblically not 100% accurate. For example he has two demon characters that end up going at each other, which according to Jesus won't happen because a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. I don't have a problem with this because it is a fictional novel and liberties are able to be taken. But the purpose of the novel was to illustrate the power of prayer and to open the eyes of readers that there are spiritual forces out there. And doctrinally, Peretti is on pretty solid ground. He has the Gospel message in there and not in a watered-down form. The way his characters handle the situations is realistic and also Biblically based. So I don't see many people being led astray due to the book except those that try to take it as Biblical truth. But Peretti himself acknowledges that his book is fiction and says you should read it as such.

Since my novel is fiction, I have the same approach. It is Biblically based, but as it is fiction, I have also taken some liberties. But I wrote the book not to be a fictional approach to the Bible, but to use fiction to illustrate Biblical themes like spiritual warfare, sitting on the fence (being hot/cold and not lukewarm), making a stand for what is good, and the importance of knowing Scripture. I made sure I was not going off on a tangent doctrinally because I don't want a cult-like following thinking my book is the absolute truth. I want people to read my book and due to the impact of it, see the need to really get back into the Word and re-evaluate how they are living their lives. God did inspire me to write the book, but I will not claim that he 'wrote' it through me like he did with the 40 authors of the Bible. I will claim he guided me through each step and he will use this book for his glory. God is going to use my novel and I pray it will draw many closer to him, and again, my novel is not the Bible. But if it draws people to the Bible, then I have done my job well.

And as for devotionals and commentaries, if their purpose is to help us understand the Bible and continually points us back to it, then it is fine. Some devotionals are more testimonials and the power of a Testimony is still beyond what we recognize most of the time. Revelation 12:11 describes it as a weapon with which the saints will defeat the dragon and how many times in the Gospels and in Acts do we see evangelists armed with no formal education and only their story? The woman at the well was a total social outcast and we can make a decent educated guess that she didn't have much education on the theological doctrine side of thing (also which can be gleaned from the way she was asking questions). Yet she became witness to her entire town because of her Testimony of her encounter with Jesus.

This is one of the reasons why I believe that more often than not, we need to pull away from the theoretical and get down and get our hands dirty. I may have a really good opportunity to do that in the next couple days. My pastor spoke today about how John and Peter healed the cripple in Acts 3 and told us to go out and be John's and Peter's. A student at my college contacted me indicating he's going through a deep depression and wants to meet with me one-on-one. I'm hoping to do that tomorrow or Tuesday, whenever he gets back with me. I'm praying that God will speak deeply to him through whatever he has me say. So pray for that encounter that God will show up in style in this guy's life.

I have a big problem with devotionals and/or books that are written from the perspective of God.

Definitly! Although I personally have not encountered any of those myself, that is dangerous ground to tread on.

By fiction are we talking exclusively fantasy, or would some Christion books/ movies be included in there too, like To Save A Life, and Left Behind, along with things like The Space Trilogy. Here's my veiw on them they're wonderful if they get you thinking, and if they encourage you to pick up your Bible, but they should never replace it. I think I like Christian-fiction/ fantasy/ scifi more than devotionals because you remember that the situations not real, but they get you thinking about what God would want you to do in a certain situation, or who God is. A good peice of Christian literature should encourage you to pick up your Bible and do some research, whether it be encouraging you directly, as Left Behind or inderectly, as The Last Battle.

The worst sort of excuse I heard in response was "it's only fiction!" which is... an insult to fiction

That statement interested me. I'd like to know more about what you mean by that. Why do you think calling it "only fiction" is an insult to fiction, and why do you feel it's bad to insult fiction, when fiction is something that isn't real? (Not saying I agree or disagree. I would just like to hear more of your opinion on this.)

I've begun to think recently that sometimes Christians rely too much on C.S. Lewis instead of Scripture!

This reminded me to ask you something I've been wanting to ask you for awhile. I heard you say something once -- I believe it was during a podcast -- where you said C.S. Lewis got points incorrect. I think two examples you gave were the Trilemma and Total Depravity. Were those the only points he got incorrect? And also, how are they incorrect?

I haven't read all of The Shack either. Mostly because I disliked the writing style, and it bored me. But I didn't see anything particularly bad in it, in my opinion. (Maybe it's just because I didn't get far enough, I don't know. I stopped pretty early on) (Edit: I just read some of the links Dr. Ransom gave me, and yes, there were some very bad things in The Shack book that I had not reached before I stopped reading.)

sin is its own punishment

I'm not sure what the book meant by this. I'm not sure if I got to this part or not when I was reading it, so I don't know the whole context of what it was saying. But it is right in one way (Whether it's the way the author meant or not I don't know). Sinning is almost like punishing yourself, because the effects of sin are so bad. The health problems that come with substance abuse, the guilt and misery that comes from leading a sinful life, etc. is usually worse than what a lot of us would think of as a punishment. Which is why God wants us to avoid these things. He only wants what's best for us.

The part a lot of people seem to have a problem with is the part about God being a woman. But I don't think the author was trying to say that God actually is a woman. He was just appearing in that way (in a vision, was it?) to a man who wouldn't have accepted Him otherwise, because experiences with his own father had left a bad taste in his mouth when it came to male authority figures. I doubt that God would actually appear to someone as a woman in real life, or even appear to anyone, let alone change his form (though I have no doubt He could if He really wanted to), but I thought it served as a sweet example in a story of how God will speak to people in a way they can understand/recieve. I liked the way it showed God as personal and loving -- which is a way that many people I know, unfortunately, do not see Him. I don't deny the fact that He also has a wrathful side, nor am I saying that He doesn't punish people. But a lot of people who already know of that side of Him are not aware of the loving, personal side of Him; and I am glad, at least, that some of those people were shown that side by the story. Though it probably could have been done in a better way than it was...

~Riella

I don't particularly care for devotions. They tend to be poorly-written, not have much depth and/or just be boring and sometimes are even non-biblical. They tend to be fluffly or so sacchrine that many Christians would see them as unrealistic and not portraying the reality of living in a difficult, sinful world and needing the hope of Christ (just the good stuff). I just don't like them. I'm sure there's good intent behind them and that they help some people but yeah, I'm not fond of them.