Whew! Finally done with the analysis (first mentioned back in this thread). I’m sorry it took so long, but in my defense I was distracted for several weeks by working up a 76 page digest and analysis of scriptural data leading to trinitarian theism.
I’ve attached my notes as a .doc file. Early references in the doc to a ‘previous comment’ of mine, should go back to the thread linked above, where I wrote some initial impressions of Prof De Young’s “tenets of universal reconciliation”.
Readers expecting me to defend The Shack per se, can just move along now: I haven’t read the book, and (aside from some question of consistency in Pr.DY’s own report of its content) I don’t go into the question of whether Pr.DY’s representation is accurate.
Since Pr.DY provides a sort of position summary late in his review, and since I take the opportunity to comment on the position summary as a summary of my previous discussion in the paper, I’ll print that portion here in this comment as, y’know, a handy summary. 
Details can be found in the doc file.
The material in quotes represents DY’s statement about WPY’s content; for purposes of my own commentary, I’m setting aside the question of whether this is accurate representation of WPY’s content, and taking the statements as-is. The parenthetical materials are my comments on each position.
1.) “God was co-crucified with Jesus.” (Could be modalistic, or otherwise heretical, but not necessarily. Certainly it is orthodox to affirm that “God” was crucified as Jesus; and there are orthodox ways to affirm that all three Persons, Father and Holy Spirit as well as Son, shared in the crucifixion of the Son. Indeed, trying to claim absolutely otherwise instantly introduces a heresy of schism in the substance instead!)
2.) “Love defines God.” (This is a technical question of essentiality, somewhat obscured by the fact that people tend to think of ‘justice’ as meaning ‘wrath’. Thus even though no orthodox Christian would dare say that ‘wrath’ defines God, non-universalists often end up meaning this anyway while trying to avoid admitting that God’s wrath must be contingent on God’s love. In any case, the coherent interrelationship of distinct Persons in a single essential substance is what distinguishes trinitarian (or at least binitarian) orthodoxy from any other supernaturalistic theism, including the heretical kinds of theism that DY rightly wishes to avoid. That’s a more technically complex way of stating “God is love.” Trying to get around or out of that position, is tantamount to trying to get around or out of orthodox trinitarianism. Christians who oppose the “orthodox” party have that option, in a way; but not those who are supposed to be affirming trinitarian orthodoxy.)
3.) “God cannot act apart from love.” (This is simply a corollary from the truth of trinitarian (or even binitarian) theism. The fact that it must also therefore apply to God’s wrath, may be “troubling” for non-universalism; but as an orthodox trinitarian universalist it certainly is no problem for me! DY shortly afterward seems to admit explicitly that this element is biblically correct (“Several of these statements above are biblically correct, for example 2, 3, 4, etc.”), but that doesn’t stop him from trying, like almost all non-universalists, to present some actions of God as being done apart from love to the object of the action.)
4.) “Jesus died for the whole world.” (DY oddly lists this as one of the “troubling” elements, despite affirming elsewhere that it is true. I certainly also affirm that it is true; and I affirm that it is troubling for non-universalists! (Calvinists have found it so troubling for non-universalism that they typically deny it!))
5.) “Power violates relationship.” (While I might quibble with element (1), depending on what is meant by it, this is the first element that I would agree with DY in rejecting. I would of course agree that any power directed toward violating relationships violates relationships, but I do not agree that all power violates relationships.)
6.) “The whole human race is at the center of God’s love purpose; God loves all his children the same, even the ones with whom he is angry.” (Aside from being testified to in various NT and OT texts, though mostly NT, this is again simply a corollary of the truth of trinitarian universalism. I wouldn’t necessarily phrase the first clause as put here, since it might be misunderstood to mean that humanity is the center of God’s own existence; but otherwise I could only deny this by tacitly or explicitly denying the truth of trinitarian theism.)
7.) “God does not punish people for sin.” (This is the second element that I agree with DY in rejecting.)
8.) “There is no hierarchy in the Trinity; it is a circle of mutual submission and relationship.” (This is the third element that I would reject. Unsure if DY rejects it as well, but probably so.)
9.) "God will use every human choice for ultimate good and the most loving outcome.” (Even most Arminians and Calvinists, in their own way, agree with this!! In fact, I typically only find them denying it when trying to deny universalism! But even though Calvs, Arms and Kaths {as I call universalists, ‘katholics’, not to be confused with the Roman Catholic Church, though they have universalists, too} have different ideas of what constitutes “the most loving outcome”, I still think I’d have to fairly admit that the other two groups are affirming the idea in principle.)
10.) “Because of love Jesus has never acted in his capacity as ‘Lord and King’ to take control of his world.” (Not yet anyway. And admittedly there are kinds of control that would not count as loving–Arms and Calvs certainly agree with this, when (which is typical, though not always the case for Arminians) they don’t consider the control of those in hell by God to be loving toward them. But I agree with DY that the biblical picture is of God putting down rebellions, God’s longsuffering patience notwithstanding. I would say, biblically, He is doing this for sake of love and “fair-togetherness”, and with those ends in view. Some Calvinists and Arminians might even agree with that. Just not with those ends in view toward certain people.)
11.) “Submission is not about authority and it is not about obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect.” (I agree with DY in rejecting the false category exclusion here; though we reject it in very different ways. DY, like most non-universalists, believes that sometimes submission is not about the fulfillment of relationships of love and respect. I believe that relationships of love and respect are exactly what God is aiming for, as a human sinner might not be aiming, in the submission and obedience to His authority.)
12.) “The Triune God is in submission to humans to form a ‘circle of relationship’.” (In the sense that the Son, representing the Father, does not come to be served but to serve, that’s obviously true. However, it’s dynamically true: the authority to serve is greater than the authority to be served, and should be submitted to for proper coherence in relationships. Trying to pretend that the authority as such doesn’t exist, ends up perverting the relationship as surely as trying to make the authority to be served greater than (or worse, and more normally, even exclusive to) the authority to be served.)
13.) “God loves all his children the same forever.” (This is element (6) extended. I might not agree with “the same”, depending on what is meant by that; but obviously Calvs are going to deny “the same” in the sense of intending saving action toward some children, and most Arms are going to deny “forever” in the case of those who end up hopelessly damned. Some Arminianistic theologians, like C. S. Lewis, would try to affirm that God is still loving the hopelessly damned as much as He possibly can, given their condition.)
14.) “Mercy triumphs over justice because of love.” (I would deny that justice per se is being triumphed over by mercy, as I would deny that there is any schism of purpose between mercy and justice. DY and I would consider the “over justice” to be a misquote, too, though for somewhat different reasons. The “because of love” I consider to be blatantly obvious where mercy triumphs over anything (such as sin), whether it happens to be stated as such right that moment in the text or not. I also consider it to be a proper statement of description concerning any action of the Triune God Who Himself is love.)
15.) “God will not judge anyone, having done judgment at the cross.” (I agree with DY in rejecting this position.)
16.) “There is not {sic?} eternal torment or punishment.” (I certainly affirm the wrath of God, and that any torment or punishment into the age to come is coming from God, and that there is certainly punishment on the way, at least some of which may be described as ‘torment’. Obviously I don’t believe that this punishment is hopelessly endless. I do believe it will continue until sinners are led to repentence and to the giving up of the final farthing. I do not believe there is any way for impenitent sinners to escape the punishment; and that even penitent sinners are not ‘escaping’ the punishment in any way!)
17.) “No institutions have ever been created by God or Jesus. They are all false.” (I agree with DY in rejecting this position.)
18.) “Jesus joins people on their multiple roads to God in their transformation into children of God.” (I could agree with this, if it is also being affirmed that Jesus must do so in order for the road to actually lead to God. The good shepherd goes out after even the hundredth sheep. If the statement is intended in a way that implies or explicitly requires that all religous ideas are equally true about God, I definitely reject that. I have no problem agreeing with even many non-universalists, such as Lewis, that God acts in other religions to lead people to salvation.)
19.) “God purposes every thing he does as an expression of his love.” (This is element (3) restated positively instead of negatively.)
20.) “God is fully reconciled to the whole world apart from requiring faith.” (In the sense that God has already done, and already does do, everything on His part toward this goal, I agree. So do Arms, when they bother to think about it. Calvs would deny the “whole world” part, but would affirm that this is true in regard to the limited number God intends to even act toward saving from sin. We don’t have to go to God first for Him to reconcile to us. We do, however, have to accept that reconciliation for the interpersonal relationship between us and God to be fulfilled; and again, I am agreeing with Arms and Calvs both on this.)
21.) “In Jesus God has forgiven all humans for their sins against him, but only some choose relationship.” (A Calvinist would disagree with the “all” part, probably; but an Arminian ought to be specifically agreeing with this! The distinction between the Arminian and a universalist who agrees with the Arminian on this, is that one party thinks God will give up eventually on at least some who don’t choose relationship, and one party thinks, like the Calvinist, that God won’t give up on anyone He intends to save.)
22.) “Love burns from people every vestige of corruption.” (Arms and Calvs typically agree with this, too, when they bother to think about it. And I am unaware of any Arms or Calvs who think sin isn’t corruption!–but Arms and Calvs also both typically agree that we are saved from other corruptions as well, eventually, than those which are, or result from, our particular intentional sins.)
23.) “Everyone will confess that Jesus is Lord of all (without mention of faith.)” (Actually, it is DY and other non-universalists who strenuously try to claim that at least some people will confess that Jesus is Lord of all without faith! Christian universalists, including myself, typically aver that this confession by all creation involves faithful subordination to Christ as Lord, as the Son Himself faithfully submits to the Father.)
••••••• {end of excerpt}
Now that I’ve finished this, I hope to catch up on discussing the Trinity for a while.
(Edited to add: I uploaded a newer version on Aug 1, 2009, which of course reset the download-counter.)
JRP critiques Prof De Young.doc (138 KB)
Technical metaphysics isn’t for everyone. Still, there are real logical consequences to whether one or another doctrinal set is true or not; so it’s worth trying to perceive as much of what is actually true as possible, in order to put our actions in communion with the Truth.
Nor, for that matter, do I recall the phrase “God the Father”, per se, being used all that often in the NT.