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 Crosswalk 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."
