“After The Shack was written, the editors worked more than a year to eliminate its universalism (as they assert on their website). [The Shack author] now disavows universalism. Yet, like all universalists, he affirms that he ‘hopes’ that none will experience eternal suffering. But the critical question is this: Does universalism remain in the book? By comparing the creeds of universalism with The Shack, one discovers many tenets of universalism and other errors are implicit in the book:
1) Universalism subjugates God’s justice to his love. The creed of 1878 asserts that God’s attribute of justice is ‘born of love and limited by love.’ The novel asserts that God ‘cannot act apart from love’ (pg. 102, 191), that God ‘chose the way of the cross where mercy triumphs over justice because of love’ and that God did not choose ‘justice for everyone’ (pg. 164-65)” –from an article by James De Young
De Young also writes, “Who is [The Shack] author? For more than a dozen years I have known William P. Young. We have discussed much theology in a ‘think tank.” More than four years ago [the author] embraced universal reconciliation and defended it on several occasions. He claimed that universalism changed his life and his theology.”
