# Appendix 4, 5



After reading almost all of Young’s fiction and non-fiction, his blogs and articles, and his interviews, it has become apparent that there are some glaring contradictions in his reasoning and logic. While the preceding book exposes many of his contradictions to the Bible, I here outline some other contradictions.

  1. Young asserts in Lies, chapter 13 (118) that all people have been reconciled to God already. No one needs to “get saved” because all are already saved. He confesses “universal reconciliation” as his settled conviction. This is the primary, central teaching belonging to universal reconciliation – quite obviously! This reconciliation is attributed to God’s work in Christ on the cross – that in his dying, Jesus brought all into an everlasting relationship with God.Yet if all are already reconciled to God, why does he also say, “No, I don’t believe in a doctrine that holds that every person will ultimately be reconciled full [sic] back to God. Yes, I hope that is true.” He goes on, stating that he is a “hopeful Universalist. . . And in a way, who isn’t?” Both of these statements derive from an article, “Does The Shack Teach Universalism?” found on his website (www.wmpaulyoung.com) and dated July 13, 2017.

  2. Young asserts in Lies (chapters 1, 24, 25) that all people are equally children of God and loved by him because all were created “in God” (Lies, chapters 1, 2, 7, 10, 22). Yet this again contradicts the preceding statements from his website. No person can be a child of God without being reconciled to God. Or, putting it differently, if everyone is a child of God by virtue of creation, there is no need for anyone to be reconciled to God (the subject of Lies, chapter 13).

  3. Young asserts that all people are good; no one is evil, because all were created in God (who is Good) (Lies, chapter 2). If this is so, why then does anyone need to be reconciled to God? Why talk about being a “hopeful universalist”?

  4. Young asserts that sin does not separate anyone from God (Lies, chapter 27). Again, if this is so, why then talk about anyone needing to be reconciled to God, of being a “hopeful universalist”?

  5. Young asserts that hell does not separate anyone from God (Lies, chapter 15). Again, if this is so, why is there a need for reconciliation?

  6. If all people are good (chapter 2), and all are children of God by virtue of being created “in God” (chapters 1, 24, 25), and all are reconciled to God already (chapter 13), and sin does not separate anyone from God (chapter 27), then why talk about the cross of Christ at all – that it was man’s idea that God used (chapter 17) to bring about reconciliation?Indeed, this is the death knell of universal reconciliation; it makes the cross of Christ – his death on the cross – unnecessary.

  7. If all are already reconciled to God (chapter 13), why wrestle with the problem of death and assert that death is not more powerful than God so that he can reach through it and bring people to himself (chapter 21)? If all are already reconciled to God, all are going to heaven anyway and death is not an issue.

All the foregoing and more raise the crucial question: If people are going to reject the Bible’s teaching regarding the need for people to believe in order to be reconciled to God, then why pretend to make the Bible a part of the foundation of universal reconciliation? Why bother with the Bible at all? Throughout Lies We Believe about God, Young gives only the slightest place to what the Bible says; and when he does cite it, he uses it in a wrongful manner, including every one of his claims about the Greek text. The chapters of my book support what I’ve just written.




Whether one agrees with Young’s beliefs or not, I think that everyone is eager to know how he got to where he is now. It is a fair question to ask: What has led Wm. P. Young to reject his evangelical heritage (so he states in Lies, 236-239) and to become a universalist (confessed in Lies, chapter 13)?

The short answer is embedded in the question as I’ve stated it. Having been unsatisfied with the answers that evangelical faith gives to great questions about life, the need for salvation, and the afterlife, he embraced the answers that universal reconciliation (UR) provides. He has embraced the UR answers to such questions as: Are people who have never believed or heard the gospel lost for eternity? What is the nature of God? Can a loving God allow people to spend an eternity in judgment? If God is love, how can he also be just and holy?

Having rejected the usual Christian answers to these and other questions, he embraced an alternative solution – a solution that ultimately is anchored not in the Bible but in reason and emotion, and often contradicts the Bible.

The second question (Why do so many follow him?) needs answering, as well. I think the short answer is: In an age seeking immediate gratification, Young’s teaching of universalism provides a good feeling, so that many are not willing to take the time to check to see if it accords with the truth of the Bible. The internet allows extremist and unorthodox views to spread around the world at the speed of light.

Let me give an illustration from the world of medicine about the danger that this level of communication can have.

A recent public television broadcast (“Frontline,” Aug. 1, 2017) dealt with the question of whether vaccinations are worth the risk that autism or some other adverse reaction should occur among a very small percentage of children. The broadcast sought to relate the latest scientific data gathered from many countries that shows that there is no increased risk of autism from taking the triple vaccine DDR or any other vaccine, nor an increased risk of any disease from any vaccination. Instead, those parents who refuse to allow the vaccination of their children are putting their children at risk of getting serious diseases, such as measles, mumps, whooping cough, and polio. Even death may ensue. But why do parents persist in their fear of vaccinating? The number one reason given was the internet. Because of this pervasive communications tool, all kinds of personal stories are aired without critical, scientific support. Because of the social media (via Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms), people become alarmed. There is a growing distrust of the medical profession (both the doctors and the institutions), and there are a few medical quacks who agree with them.

Now here is the parallel that explains Paul Young’s success. When people hear Young’s stories, they find that it resonates with their own. By social media, they spread the word around the world. They usually don’t consult the theological profession – their pastors or Bible school or seminary teachers – and there are a few religious quacks who agree with them. There is growing distrust of biblical truth.

There are some big names in both camps who enjoy the reputation of being “gurus” for such people. In a recent posting (July 16, 2017), Paul Young related his being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey (on July 9, 2017). He came away saying, “I want to be more like Oprah Winfrey.”

But it is quite revealing what Young said during his almost hour-long interview. See it on his website, www.wmpaulyoung.com. He suggests redefining God’s judgment and holiness and asserts that we are living in a time of transition where relationship (not truth, apparently) is supreme. People don’t need to be “transformed” but simply need to discover who they already are.

Now let’s consider the third question. What’s wrong with Paul Young having his own different views of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and to lead others to follow him? The answer is that we are not dealing with optional questions and answers about our culture, jobs and security, raising a family, and so forth. We are dealing with the eternal destiny of every human being. It is a far more serious issue than that of vaccinating for a serious or deadly disease. We’re dealing with the matter of where a human being will spend eternity – a very long time, far beyond a physical life on this planet!

So we want to know the truth about the afterlife. Young has his unorthodox views, as have others. We can believe them if we wish, but at our peril. There is only one Person in the entire history of mankind who ever went through death and came back to live forever – namely Jesus Christ the Son of God, sent from heaven for the purpose of rescuing humanity from an everlasting hell. In the New Testament, the apostles recorded their witness to the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So convinced were they of what they had witnessed that all but one died as martyrs.

What credentials does Paul Young have to become an authoritative leader to contradict what Jesus and the New Testament say? Young never went through death and came back alive!

In the end, Wm. P. Young is just another unauthorized, illegitimate teacher whose views will die with him and with those who have followed him.