Kent Hovind endorses “The Shack”

Wow! I just heard that Kent Hovind is endorsing “The Shack” by William P. Young!

Kent Hovind has done much work for the cause of Young Earth Creationism, but now as he has gained much credibility with his stand against the US government, he seems to be slipping in some serious heresy into his teachings!  (This is a pattern we are seeing with a lot of false teachers like Chuck Swindol, David Jeremiah, and Ravi Zacharias, but today I just want to focus on Dr. Hovind)

Dr. Hovind says that he has read “The Shack” 7 or 8 times, and while he doesn’t agree with everything in it, he recommends it as the best book he has ever read!

I tackled this book briefly in “The Spirit of Prophecy”, and I present a section of the book for you here;

“Well, I had to get it out of the library and check it out. Indeed it is true that the God presented in “The Shack” is not the God of the Bible. The God of this book is a pantheistic (God is all things) or panentheistic (God is in all things) God, that has more in common with Santa Claus than the God of the Bible.

The Shack is a cleverly crafted fable that sucks the reader in with the use of emotion, but in the end it teaches a false view of God.

God the Father is portrayed as an African-­American woman, named Eloise, but called “Papa”, who has scars on her hands. This is turning God into a goddess. The scars on her hands are extreme heresy since it was the Father who sacrificed His Son for mankind.

The Father did not suffer on the cross, it was Jesus alone who died for our sins! The Father abandoned His Son on the cross, and he did it for you! He did not suffer as did His Son. If He did suffer at all it was emotional, but the atonement was done by Christ alone!

While it is true that Jesus did come as a man, to portray God the Father and the Holy Spirit in this way is definitely idolatry. (Exodus 20:4) Our culture is so used to this that we do not see it when it happens right in front of us.

What does the God of the Shack have to say about sin? “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it” (The Shack, page 120).

What does the God of the bible say about the punishment of sin? And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:10­15)

The Father was satisfied by His Son’s sacrifice! It was actually the Father who demanded the sacrifice, though Jesus is just as Holy as His Father. The Jesus of the Shack is not the Jesus of the Bible, but “another Jesus”. This guy is a Jewish carpenter who goes around fixing things, and is some sort of “good old boy”.

Paul Young elevates experience to a level equal to or even above Scripture, and is demeaning to the reformation doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”. He also subtly promotes a form of Universalism, called Universal Reconciliation, or Christian Universalism. Though he publically denies this, nevertheless this is what is presented in the pages of this book.

Dr. Michael Youssef has counted thirteen heresies promoted in “The Shack”. (13 Heresies, Youssef) As an engaging read, the author sneaks these ideas into your head while you are preoccupied with the emotion of the story. The ideas presented serve to undermine biblical Christianity. The “Jesus” of the Shack says “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa (God the Father), or Sarayu (God the Holy Spirit).(p. 110) The clear implication is that there are are other ways to relate to God. The Jesus of the bible says something very different:” (The Spirit of Prophecy, pages 127-128)

I recommend you watch this video by Brian Moonan on Dr. Hovind’s views.

Notice, at the 25:20 point he plays an interview by Stephen Anderson, a self-professed Nazi sympathizer, with Dr. Hovind. In this section he endorses a form of Eugenics, stating that the human race would get better if adulterers, homosexuals, murderers, those who practise bestiality, and several other sins, were put to death! Here he is bringing back the Old Testament law, and does not seem to have the discernment to realize that the Church-Age believers are not under the law, but under grace.

The problem with all of these behaviours is not genetics, but the old problem of sin. We are sinners by nature, and the only solution for this is not ISIS’ solution of “death to the infidels” but the new birth, and salvation through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ! For him to make statements like these, plus the company he keeps, make me think that Dr. Kent Hovind does not understand salvation!

Large parts of the Holy Bible were written by three murderers, Moses, David and the Apostle Paul. Moses killed an Egyptian slave owner who had been beating a Hebrew slave. Here is Moses’ own account, and note that he did not intervene while the beating was going on, but went later and premeditatedly killed the Egyptian. Interestingly, in all the law that Moses would later write, he never once said it was OK to kill a man who beat his slaves!

11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. 12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. 13 And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? 14 And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known. 15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian:…” Exodus 2:11-15

No, Moses was a murderer, and his murder was not OK, but God had a plan for Moses, and saved him in spite of this murder, as He has done with other murderers, like David for example;

David had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba, and then to cover it up he had his soldiers abandon her husband, Uriah, in battle, so that he was killed by the sword of the Ammonites. God, however, held David accountable;

Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.” II Samuel 12:9

Did David deserve to die for this crime? Yes, absolutely, but God was showing us a principle that He employs over and over again: “I desired mercy and not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6) Time and time again God shows us mercy, hoping that we will repent, and turn to Him for forgiveness.

Today David knows that he deserves the depths of the lake of fire, and yet he is not there because of the mercy of God! As a result David has an exceedingly great love for the Lord!

This is the same principle Jesus explained in Luke;

Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. Luke 7:47

Do you realize that your sins separated between you and God also? Have you turned to Him in repentance and faith?

The man who eventually became known as the Apostle Paul went about killing Christians before his conversion. I have heard Christians excuse Paul because it says “he was consenting” to the killings. Let’s be clear here, the word “consenting” here means that Paul gave them permission to kill Stephen, and other Christians, and also that he took responsibility.  The buck stopped with Saul of Tarsus!

The high ranking Nazi officers who gave the orders were the ones the western governments held responsible, and put to death at Nuremburg, even though they were not the ones who carried out the crimes personally. In the same way, Saul of Tarsus, the Apostle Paul, was indeed guilty of murder, but he was forgiven and repented.

It is not the place for Christians to advocate for the death penalty for any person. Many people deserve death, but that is the place of the civil government, and I would argue that most civil governments do not approach the subject in a just way. The place of Christians is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The early Church got its start in a society where many murderers walked free, and many innocent people were put to death; the Roman Empire. In spite of this travesty, the church did not set its goal to make society more just. Rather they simply preached the cross of Christ, and salvation in His name!  The Lord demands no more, and no less of us today!

The British government in the American colonies, and the early US government did not apply biblical law in the New Testament fashion, but more in the way the Old Testament applied it, only much more harshly.  Actually, more like Rome.  This is because of the Calvinism of the early settlers, and the fact that they did not understand the mercy of God.

In fact the Apostle Paul actually lists those guilty of some of the very same sins on Dr. Hovind’s list, as members of the early Church;

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. I Corinthians 6:9-11

The early Church did indeed have former idolaters, adulterers, gays and homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners in its membership. If our governments were to put people like this to death the whole world would be empty! We live in an age of grace where God wants us to be merciful to sinners, yet not ignoring sin, but calling sinners to repentance.

A man who advocates the death penalty for these people is a man who does not understand the mercy of God toward himself! It makes me wonder if Dr. Hovind is saved himself!

23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. 24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. 28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. 29 And his fellow servant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. 32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: 33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee? 34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. Matthew 18:23-35

Dr. Hovind is a man who should be avoided, because he is teaching heresy to Christians!

About dknezacek

An average, ordinary guy. Author, husband, father, pilot, aircraft builder, test pilot, machinist, artist, just ordinary stuff that lots of people do. Don't forget bible student. Dan's passion is bible study, especially including the End Times prophecies.
This entry was posted in Christian Doctrine and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Kent Hovind endorses “The Shack”

  1. Edgars says:

    Always skipped or have ignored him when I was watching youtube videos about YEC. I believe Holy Spirit was guiding and protecting me. Up until now I didn’t even know that he endorses heretic books. I will warn others about him now.

    • dknezacek says:

      You are probably correct; the Spirit was likely protecting you. It seems that these days that the apostasy is spreading all over the world, and people we once thought were biblical are falling into great error.

      Kent Hovind has a lot of followers among independent Baptists, among whom I once counted myself. This whole thing is very discouraging, but it also should force us to rely more on the Holy Spirit and less on men!

  2. Matthias says:

    Hello Dan,

    thanks for the information. Did not know this guy and found the stuff not very appealing.

    I would just suggest you to reconsider your statement about God’s suffering when he gave permission to turn his son over to the evil doers.

    Extreme emotional pain is no different from severe physical pain. Who was suffering more, Abraham or Isaac, Jacob or Joseph, David or Absalom? I think the fathers were suffering more, beyond any understanding. And God the Father was suffering more during his son’s hour than every being ever had suffered or will be suffering in the eternities. Imagine for a second just the pain Jacob went through when people made him believe that his beloved son was teared apart by an evil beast.

  3. dknezacek says:

    Hi Matthias,

    When you say “did not know about this guy”, are you referring to William P. Young, or Kent Hovind? I have a set of creation videos by Hovind from back in the 1990s, and they were very well done, and biblical. This is why it hurt to hear that he is now endorsing “the Shack”. If you meant Young, you should count yourself as blessed!

    The Baptist Church I used to belong to was recommending “The Shack” about 5 years ago. When they did there was a chorus of “amens” from the audience!

    God the Father was the one pouring out His wrath on His Son, on the cross. “The Shack” states that the Father suffered physically with Jesus, which is incorrect. Jesus was NOT the victim of those who killed Him, and in fact He had engineered His own death.

    17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. John 18:17-18

    You are correct that the Father loves Him because He laid down His life, and certainly the Father was grieved that the Son had to die, because of our sin, but nowhere does the Scripture say that the Father suffered physically.

    The wrath of God was poured out on the Son alone, so the Son is the Saviour, not the Father, nor the Spirit. It is true that all three members of the Godhead worked toward this goal, but it was Christ alone who bore our sins. He alone is the Saviour.

    Maybe I wasn’t as clear as I should have been, but I certainly believe my intent was correct. Hope this clears it up.


    • Matthias says:

      Hi Dan,

      thanks for your reply. I think a new topic you could consider to cover if there comes the right time could be writing about the lethargy and nonresponsiveness of Christians. We can really appreciate that you are a man of understanding who is willing to respond to the thoughts of other people. Honestly, in Germany I found nobody of knowlege who was willing to exchange thoughts and arguments. It’s a country with more than 80 million inhabitants, but I found literally not a single person. Maybe I’m just a lazy seeker. lol

      I see your points. Actually, I don’t know any of the persons you have mentioned. I just wanted to point out that the willingness of Christ to go this way, in my opinion should not be seen dissociated from the turmoil and the heartache it must have meant for the Father too. I agree, that it was kind of designed in some regard, but not in a mechanical and deterministic way, but embracing fully the responsibility of men and “those entities from the dark side of the forrest”. I agree, Christ was suffering in the flesh and God the Father was not. But I would not fully agree that God the Father was not suffering beyond any understanding, when his son was tortured, cursed, disgraced, devalidated, and and and…

      In terms of rating the degree of suffering a differentiation between physical pain and pain of the soul does not make much sense. The teachings of the bible show clear evidence for extreme sufferings possible independently from a biological body. Further a too mechanistically interpretation would take away from the wonderful and deep prophetical content of the relationships described between Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, David and Absalom.

      “Deeply shaken, the king went up to the chamber overlooking the city gate, weeping bitterly and crying out as he went along, “My son Absalom! My son! My son Absalom! I wish I had died instead of you, Absalom my son, my son!”

      THIS WAS PROPHECY. The Bible is historically valid, but at the same time it’s so much more than just a historical biography of a king who ruled about some area in middle east some thousand years ago.

      Finally, even in scientific medicine we can not play off physical against emotional pain. There are drugs which allow to dissociate the emotional aspect of physical suffering from the sensory elements, making the pain much more easy to tolerate, despite the sensory element of the pain is still there and did not change at all.

      • dknezacek says:

        Hi Matt,

        I guess one thing I could point to, regarding your first point, is Jesus statement that “the children of this world, in their day, are wiser than the children of light”. I think He was basically saying that the thing you are interested in most, will be the thing you get good at. Those who are interested in this world more will become better at understanding and dealing with the things of this world. Those who are more interested in the things of God will never be as good at making money, or making friends, as the children of this world.

        This world is passing away, and we are better off concentrating on the things of God. I am sure, however, that many professing Christians who don’t speak up are in that position because they are too in love with the things of this world. Rather than accept some personal inconvenience, many professing Christians keep quiet because they are afraid of losing some comfort, or luxury they have become accustomed to. They will not be able to keep those luxuries by remaining silent, however. AS Jesus said “He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” John 12:25

        As to the second point, the pain Jesus was feeling was the pain that I brought upon Him. The suffering at the hands of the Roman soldiers was nothing compared to the pain of sin that you and I put Him through. No doubt it grieved the Father that He had to punish His son for someone else’s sin, yet this shows the love of both the Father and the Son that they agreed to do this for worthless creatures such as us! No doubt all three members of the Godhead worked together to bring us salvation, yet the pain Christ endured was His alone, and for this suffering He is the only one who is worthy to rule!

        This is one thing that troubles me about the ancient Jewish idea of two messiahs, the suffering messiah, and the conquering messiah. They correctly could see that the OT predicts both, but they couldn’t see how it could be the same person. They don’t seem to understand that the only one worthy to be the conquering messiah, is the suffering Messiah! This Jewish idea seems to me to be a doorway to the Antichrist!

      • Matthias says:

        Hello Dan,

        how are you?

        Well, I think this statement from you is quite spot on:

        “They don’t seem to understand that the only one worthy to be the conquering messiah, is the suffering Messiah! This Jewish idea seems to me to be a doorway to the Antichrist!”

        Now I see were you are coming from with your pointing out that Christ was suffering in the flesh. I personally think that God the Father was suffering even more than the son, but you are right he was not suffering in the flesh, neither was his suffering the currency of salvation if you will.

        In Germany there are recently a lot of youtube videos from the so called “infokrieger mcm”. So far my impression is that they are messianic christians. Their teachings is not completely bad, but they seem to fall into the trap you are warning about. They strongly suggest both the islam and the catholic church to be THE beast and – so to speak – being the matrix of the AC. They also seem not to be against military intervention in the Middle East. Quite understandable but finally a high risk approach of them, many people with that kind of attitude probably would swallow the candy-coated pill, which will turn out to become very bitter at the end.

        And that most people, at least while being online, nowadays are really bad communicators and even worse networkers is a crazy finding. “The haze of nonresponsiveness” as I like to call it. It’s really serious and I don’t know where it comes from. It’s not normal at all. I did the math recently to explain it to a guy who is quite “successful” with alternative media. I wrote in a comment and tried to explain it to him, like “about 120.000 users watched your video with 8 minutes length. Meaning a total time consumption of insanely 16.000 hours, which resulted neither in any invitations to any (local) events, nor any meet-ups within the supporter scene, nor any correspondance the guy started with one or two of the supporters. Nothing. This is so crazy, tens of thousands of people share an experience, but nothing will happen. No friendship, no romance (sorry lol), no meetings, no mutual support within the supporter scene, nothing. Not even giving each other a reply (to private mails etc). We are just having a bulk of superficial controversies in the comments.” I don’t care much in this specific case but it is everywhere.

        Sorry for the long post.

        Let me quote finally the following insights of some preacher – it’s so crucial:

        “Responsiveness is paramount in ministry and leadership. Whether it’s an email, a phone call, or Facebook message, most people expect some sort of response. I realize busyness makes this difficult, but it’s an important enough issue to address. I encourage leaders to figure out a process that allows for diligent responsiveness.

        Here are 3 problems with unresponsiveness:
        It makes a person feel unappreciated– When someone doesn’t get a response back, the person feels they aren’t important enough. They wonder what they’ve done wrong or why they aren’t good enough.

        It makes a person feel unloved – Like it or not, unresponsiveness is translated, especially in the church setting, as an indicator of love. If you don’t respond, you must not love them very much.

        It makes a person mistrust you or the organization – People will only tolerate unresponsiveness a few times. Want to wreck an organization’s credibility? Become known as unresponsiveness.

        So what do you do about it?
        Make responsiveness an extremely high value in the organization.
        Leaders should lead by example.
        Answer all emails and return calls promptly, even if you don’t have an answer yet.
        Have a system is in place to respond to all queries. Never ignore a request.
        Even in the best environments, situations like the example above will happen. People will feel they’ve not been listened to, that no one cares, or that they are unloved. They’ll take it personal enough to leave the organization.

        The more you can do to avoid it the better you will build an atmosphere of genuine trust.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.