One of the marks of today’s fanatical “discernment” witch-hunters, which include divisive Watchbloggers, overly-zealous “apologists,” and rabid Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs) is their common knack for isolating certain words, phrases, comments, or terms in hopes of painting someone as a heretic/apostate (or New Age/Liberal deceiver of some kind).
Their targets of choice are usually well-established/high profile authors, pastors/teachers, or church leaders. And if anyone seeks to defend their chosen targets (or attempts to stand for truth, as opposed to lies), then those individuals are subsequently targeted as well—and they are attacked with a level of hate and suspicion similar to that which was used against the original witch-hunter’s target.
The original enemy they singled out from the crowd must be exposed and destroyed for God—and all those who dare to stand in God’s way are of the devil and must also be destroyed. This was the mentality behind the Medieval witch hunts and the Salem witch trials, which is partly why such activities went unchecked. People were afraid in 1692, for example, to perhaps step up and say, “Wait! Goody Osborne be no witch!” Because if they did so, they’d find themselves on trial as well. This is what we see happening today.
THE PENAL SUBSTITUTION ATTACK
Recently, in one of my posts against these divisive and destructive people (see ODM Update: Another Apologist Speaks Out Against the ODMs), I made a few comments about the Penal Substitution Theory/View of the atonement that were subsequently used in an attempt to show that I was in error with regard to my understanding of “the Gospel.”
All sorts of false accusations, assumptions, and misrepresentations have been made about me and my views thanks to a few witch-hunters who apparently have a desire to see me declared anything from a heretic, to a deceiver, to an idiot. And unfortunately, some like-minded individuals have chosen to accept these misrepresentations and run with them.
But the truth, which I owe my faithful blog readers, is that the various comments I’ve made regarding the Penal Substitution Theory/View of the atonement, IN CONTEXT, were specifically directed at individuals, who from my perspective, have added that particular view/explanation of the atonement to the Gospel in a way that makes it a necessary belief for salvation.
My remarks throughout the article merely demonstrate that I disagree with their view, preferring instead, to hold to what I believe is a more biblical stand—i.e., that a person can be saved by merely embracing the glorious truth that Jesus died for their sins on the cross, and that by placing their faith in him as their Lord and Savior who died and rose again from the grave, they can receive forgiveness and eternal life. This is the heart of the Gospel, as outlined in 1 Cor. 15: 1-4.
The comments I made that some persons have taken out of context and chosen to use as ammunition against me are as follows:
- “…to say that any single THEORY of the atonement is actually ‘a non-negotiable part of the gospel’ is actually adding to the purity of the Gospel as outlined in 1 Corinthians by Paul.”
- “the ‘Penal Substitution’ theory is not part of the Gospel, let alone a ‘non-negotiable’ part of the Gospel. To say that it is actually part of the Gospel, in my opinion, is to add an unbiblical condition of salvation to the pure and simple Gospel of faith outlined by the apostle Paul in First Corinthians.”
It should be fairly clear to anyone reading these two statements that IN CONTEXT I am using the phrase “the Gospel” to mean those beliefs necessary to save—i.e., the saving aspects of faith as outlined in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. That is all I am referring to.
I am NOT dealing in the original article with whether or not Penal Substitution is part of the Gospel in a more total, specific, detailed way (see my qualifiers in both quotes about 1 Cor. 15:1-4). And my views are made very plain in the total article.
Nevertheless, these two statements have been isolated by various witch-hunters in an attempt to prove the following statements:
1. I reject penal Substitution;
2. I deny that Penal Substitution is indeed part of the fullness of the Gospel;
3. I approve of people who reject Penal Substitution as a biblical explanation of the atonement.
All three of these statements are false. The truth is as follows:
1. I embrace, teach/preach, support, and defend Penal Substitution as biblical.
2. I believe that Penal Substitution is indeed part of the Gospel in its full development and completion.
3. I argue that Christians who reject Penal Substitution are biblically inconsistent, doctrinally confused, and have a woefully incomplete understanding of what happened at the cross during the atonement.
In hopes of alleviating some of the confusion that has been created by these accusers of the brethren who have tried to spread their poisonous rancor on the Internet and in various subscriber news groups, I eventually posted am “Update & Response.” It clearly explains:
I absolutely hold to Penal Substitution. I have taught it. I still teach it. I defend it. And I correct others who do not teach it. But I also hold the view that one cannot instantly kick another person out of the Body of Christ if they do not understand/accept Penal Substitution. They would certainly be biblically inconsistent. And they would certainly be in doctrinal error. That does not mean, however, that they would be unsaved, nor would it mean that they were necessarily preaching a false gospel. . . . I do not separate it from the Gospel. I separate it from the beliefs required for salvation. Penal Substitution is indeed part of the Gospel, but as noted above, it is part of the Gospel in its full development and completion.
Despite this painfully clear position statement, which I supported with historical references showing how Penal Substitution fits into the evolution of beliefs in the early church, various witch-hunters have continued to insist that I:
a) deny Penal Substitution;
b) argue that it is not part of the Gospel in toto;
c) support those who deny Penal Substitution.
Again, all three accusations are false.
WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
Another statement of mine that has raised heresy-hunter eyebrows is this one from the original article in question:
“Penal Substitution is an additional after-the-fact, deep, complex, theological, plumbing-the-depths-of scripture doctrine that seeks to explain in the best way possible HOW that atonement took place. It is an expansion on what the Gospel means and is extrapolated from numerous verses. It is something DERIVED from the text ABOUT the Gospel. It is NOT the Gospel itself. We must be very, very, very, very careful to not become overly dogmatic when it comes to complex theological areas of debate that are not DIRECTLY related to our identification of, and relationship to, God.”
As I have explained elsewhere, “in my original post, I was speaking in very general/informal terms with regard to the basic/core Gospel as presented in 1 Cor. 15.” And that Gospel is most commonly just thought of as the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus—i.e., the Good News:
> The Gospel in a Nutshell. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, the apostle Paul summarizes the most basic ingredients of the gospel message, namely, the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of the resurrected Christ” (bible.org).
> “What is the gospel? . . . 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 provides a good summary of what the gospel is” (gospeloutreach.net).
> “…’the gospel is the joyous proclamation of God’s redemptive activity in Christ Jesus on behalf of man enslaved by sin.’ . . . the apostle Paul, the gospel was the reason for his existence. That there would be no doubt about exactly what the gospel means, Paul specifically defines it in his first letter to the Corinthians” (faithfacts.org).
I even demonstrated on March 25 that I was speaking in such general terms about “the Gospel” when I qualified my remarks about Penal Substitution not being part of “the Gospel” by quoting Leon Morris, a staunch supporter of Penal Substitution:
“The NT writers do not repeat a stereotypical story. . . . [E]ach shows that it is the death of Christ and not any human achievement that brings salvation [note: this is the essential of the faith]. . . . But NONE OF THEM SETS OUT A THEORY OF ATONEMENT. . . . There are MANY WAYS of viewing it. We are left with no doubt about its efficacy and complexity. View the human spiritual problem as you will, and the cross meets the need [RA note: again, here is the essential]. BUT THE NEW TESTAMENT DOES NOT SAY HOW IT DOES SO.”
(Leon Morris, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 100).
“Theories of the atonement are legion as men in different countries and in different ages have tried to bring together the varies strands of scriptural teaching and to work them into a theory that will help others to understand HOW God has worked to bring us salvation. The way has been open for this kind of venture, in part at least, BECAUSE THE CHURCH HAS NEVER LAID DOWN AN OFFICIAL, ORTHODOX VIEW.”
(Leon Morris, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 100).
“Heresies appeared [about about the nature of Christ and the Trinity], were thoroughly discussed, and were disowned. In the end the church accepted the formula of Chalcedon as the standard expression of orthodox faith. BUT THERE WAS NO EQUIVALENT FOR THE ATONEMENT. PEOPLE SIMPLY HELD TO THE SATISFYING TRUTH THAT CHRIST SAVED THEM BY WAY OF THE CROSS AND DID NOT ARGUE ABOUT HOW SALVATION WAS AFFECTED”
(Leon Morris, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 100).
“All the above views, in their own way, recognize that the atonement is vast and deep. There is nothing quite like it. . . . the NT sees the sinner lost, as suffering in hell, as perishing, as cast into outer darkness, and more. An atonement that rectifies all this must necessarily be complex. So we need all the vivid concepts . . . . And we need all the theories. Each draws attention to an important aspect of our salvation and we dare not surrender any. But we are small-minded sinners and the atonement is great and vast. WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT THAT OUR THEORIES WILL EVER EXPLAIN IT FULLY.”
(Leon Morris, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 102).
I then added the following comment: “Morris along with many others (including me) have repeatedly taught and fervently supported/defended the Penal Substitution Theory/View as biblical. Fine. But that is a totally DIFFERENT ISSUE than declaring that the Penal Substitution Theory/View is part of the actual core Gospel itself, as outlined by Paul in 1 Cor. 15” (again, notice the qualifier).
It is certainly true that we can dig far deeper into the depths of all that Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 15, but for purposes of witnessing and for issues surrounding thoughts on who is (and who is not saved), the basic/core elements needed for salvation are found in a simple, face-value understanding and acceptance of the miraculous truths stated in Paul’s words.
We must not instantly hit the delete-from-the-Body-of-Christ button for anyone who either does not understand Penal Substitution, or who understands it, but rejects it based on other factors that are blinding them to a deeper picture of “HOW” the atonement actually worked—i.e., the cosmic mechanics at work behind Christ’s atonement on the cross.
Those who willfully deny the atonement are confused, unbiblical, and missing a depth to their faith, but their denial of that view/theory/explanation of the atonement does not immediately mean they have no saving faith at all.
MY USE OF THE PHRASE “THE GOSPEL”
The frame of reference I am using for the phrase “the Gospel” is that of a non-scholarly, user-friendly, in-the-trenches, front-lines, evangelistically-minded, minister to those within cults, the occult, world religions, and the secular realm.
In that arena, for witnessing and simplicity sake, the phrase “the Gospel” is most commonly used to simply refer to that which is outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. And that is how I was using the phrase when declaring that Penal Substitution is not part of “the Gospel.”
I made a relatively simple post about how we must add nothing to the Gospel that saves (i.e., the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ). I used a generalized reference to “the Gospel” as being that which is found in 1 Cor. 15—never imagining that some would come along and turn it into an issue of contention. In quick summation:
1. Understanding/Accepting Penal Substitution IS NOT necessary for understanding the Gospel in its sufficiency to save.
2. Understanding/Accepting Penal Substitution IS necessary for understanding the Gospel in its full development and completion.
What we are dealing with here are two issues:
1. What must be BELIEVED in order to be saved; and
2. What must be TRUE in order for it to even be possible for someone to be saved.
These two issues must not be confused or mixed. As stated to one of the witch-hunters who apparently felt that they had found some incriminating evidence on me:
“You have tried to make that post into some indictment against me by using what has become the fine art of far too many so-called ‘apologists’—i.e, creating trouble where there need be no trouble. My advise to you is stop being a trouble-maker. You’ll be better off for it. And so will the Body of Christ.”
The times are evil and deceptive……and some of the evil/deception is coming from the very ones who are claiming to stand for truth and who are declaring themselves to be the protectors of the faith/church. It is irony on a cosmic level.
Richard Abanes
Word of Encouragement: The church is waking up to these so-called discerners, Watchbloggers, ODMs, accusers of the brethren, and assorted heresy-hunters/witch-hunters. To see other articles now appearing online to combat this destructive force in the church, please see the following articles:
Great Damage: The Gift of Discernment Used in the Flesh
The ODM Cult (home website of my articles)
UPDATE & STATEMENT
(H. Wayne House)
With regard to Penal Substitution, I called H. Wayne House—Faith Evangelical Seminary, Distinguished Research Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies—and discussed this issue with him at great length.
I agree with him completely on the issues we discussed, including matters related to various soteriology-linked passages of scripture, the atonement, the work of the cross, salvation, the thrust of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 15, and several other matters regarding what is (and what is not) part of the Gospel — i.e., the basic/salvific gospel core, as well as the gospel in its full development.
House offered an official statement with which I completely agree and that I now post with his permission:
________________________ BEGIN
The heart of the Gospel (accomplishment of salvation) centers on Jesus and is composed of several components:
• God entered into the world in the person of Jesus the Messiah to be the sacrifice of God for the sins of men;
• Jesus died vicariously (not His own) on the cross for the sins of men; Jesus endured the wrath of God (propitiation) for the sins of men as a substitution for those who deserve to be punished instead; Jesus paid for the sin of Adam (satisfaction) and has reconciled the world to God;
• Jesus’ death provides forgiveness (expiation) for the sins of those who believe in His efficacy for them.
Moreover, the resurrection plays a key role in the accomplishment of the Gospel from Paul’s perspective (Acts 17; 1 Cor 15).
The heart of the Gospel proclamation (application) is that we believe that Jesus died to deliver us from our sins. The various statements of Gospel proclamation in the NT do not include all of the elements of the accomplishment of salvation but usually have one aspect or the other but the call is to believe the good news that God loves the world and sent His Son to save those who believe in Him.
Never is a full-orbed development of all of the elements of the accomplishment of salvation given, to my knowledge. Most of this theology is what comes through discipleship and catechetical instruction.
H. Wayne House
Faith Evangelical Seminary, Distinguished Research Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies
_____________________END
Amen….
Richard Abanes
kathisharpe said
Richard,
Quite a ways back I was having a conversation on the phone with a heresy hunter, who was desperately trying to convince me that I’m not saved (because I had a vision of Jesus just prior to salvation). In the course of the conversation, he asked me who Jesus is to me.
My response was something like,
His reply was to correct me. Jesus apparently isn’t supposed to be any of those things. When we stand on Judgment Day before the Father, we’re supposed to announce to Him that the blood of Jesus has cleansed us from all sin and therefore we have the right to stand before Him. He had a way of saying it (he repeated it several times) that made me think he’d rehearsed it as a speech.
That ranks up high on the “Duh!” scale, don’t you think? I can just picture God saying to him, “And….?”
We’re not going to get to heaven by way of passing certain legal requirements. Yes, it’s true – there are some very “legal” aspects to the atonement – but the whole purpose of atonement is AT ONE MENT – for us to be able to have this marvelous, passionate, Bride-of-Christ relationship with God starting right here and now.
That’s what the heresy hunters miss – and it’s the #1 thing that they rail against.
richardabanes said
very strange, Kathi, very strange, indeed …….
FYI, there is an excellent article on the Penal Substitution “Theory” of the atonement here. It brings out some very crucial issues regarding the importance Penal Substitution view.
My only qualification on this article is the way the author places too much negative emphasis on the word “THEORY,” going so far as to say that Penal Substitution is not a theory/view at all.
But Penal Substitution is indeed referred to very often as a Theory/View, which can sometimes confuse people. So, in a sense, although it is not a theory/view (like evolution), it can indeed be referred to as a theory/view in an appropriate way, as follows:
As we see, there is a proper way to refer to Penal Substitution as a Theory/View. And it’s classification as a theory/view is consistent with the church’s lack of any official proclamation on it, unlike other doctrines like the trinity and human/divine nature of Christ. So, although it can be called a theory/view, this is certainly a theory/view that is true. Even so, it still does not FULLY explain all that the truth that is likely resident within the glorious event which took place at the cross in the atonement.
Far more must have taken place (on a cosmic level) than we see being articulated in Penal Substitution. Nevertheless, that particular view/theory, without a doubt, does provide the fullest, more Bible-centered, consistent-with-God’s-attributes, grounded, and complete look at the atonement.
In conclusion, however, as I have already stated: “We must not instantly hit the delete-from-the-Body-of-Christ button for anyone who either does not understand Penal Substitution, or who understands it, but rejects it based on other factors that are blinding them to a deeper picture of ‘HOW’ the atonement actually worked—i.e., the cosmic mechanics at work behind Christ’s atonement on the cross. Those who willfully deny the atonement are confused, unbiblical, and missing a depth to their faith, but their denial of that view/theory/explanation of the atonement does not immediately mean they have no saving faith at all.”
Richard Abanes
Nick said
You should check out my Penal Substitution debate:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/psdebate
I show it to be flatly unBiblical, and thus you have nothing to fear because Scripture is on your side.