In one of my recent articles (see Don’t Believe Everything You Read…On the Internet), I noted how there now exists a certain group of online “Christians,” who under the guise of discernment/apologetics (i.e., Online Discernment Ministries), have been attacking other Christians using some of the same tactics employed by religious cultists to denounce those who are not part of their particular group. I have labeled this relatively new group of religious zealots the “Cult of Online Discernment Ministries” (ODMs).

Before I begin the following article, it should be noted as a point of reference that the tactics often used by cults to mislead and deceive their followers include: half-truths, false information, outright lies, faulty reasoning, unsubstantiated assumptions, quotes taken out of context, manipulation of facts (and concealment of facts), sensational language, fear-mongering, conspiracy theories, hate rhetoric, and verbiage that presents a rigid “us vs. them” mentality.

Such tactics are particularly useful by cultists (and ODMs) when attacking perceived enemies. In the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, the perceived enemy is all of Christendom. In the case of the infamous Jonestown commune (as well as David Koresh’s Branch Davidians), the perceived enemy was the government. In the case of Shoko Asahara, just about everyone was the enemy. Each group has its perceived enemies and targets them for verbal assault in hopes of depicting them as the part of the Antichrist world system, and/or at the very least, portraying them as apostate, heretical, and unbiblical.

These “cult” methods of expressing a particular “truth,” or message, or doctrinal position can be readily seen in much of the writing that is being distributed over the Internet by the ODMs. In their case, however, the targets of opportunity range from doctrinally sound Christian pastors (e.g., Kerry Shook, Erwin McManus, Greg Laurie, Rick Warren) to respected Christian authors (e.g., Ravi Zacharias), to Christian Seminaries (e.g., Biola University and Moody Bible Institute), to respected/orthodox/conservative Christian apologists (Hank Hanegraaff, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, and myself).

The many victims of their online streams of poisonous rancor and slander have been variously condemned as heretics, false teachers, anti-biblical liars, enemies of the cross, deceivers, clown pastors, apostates, fake brethren leading fake churches, compromisers, conspiratorial players in some Antichrist scenario, and closet New Agers seeking to lead the faithful astray. It has become nothing less than a 21st Century Witch Hunt with the ODMs acting as judges, jurors, and executioners.

These ODMs, to varying degrees, are unnecessarily dividing the Body of Christ, erecting walls of separation between Christian brothers/sisters, spreading fear, instigating hate/strife, and disseminating slanderous gossip/rumors—all in the name of defending the Christian faith and the purity the Gospel.

THE ODM PROBLEM

Let me be very clear: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ACCURATELY, LOVINGLY, BIBLICALLY, AND TRUTHFULLY defending the faith and the Gospel by pointing out the errors of public teachers/preachers (or churches and organizations). We are not only to defend our own personal faith when asked (1 Peter 3:15), but when necessary, we are to preach the word of God, as well as “reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2).

But these ODMs are not speaking the truth, let alone speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). They are not defending the faith. They are not engaging in actual apologetics. And they are not using biblical approaches to sound doctrinal critiquing. They are dividing the Body of Christ. They are falsely accusing the brethren. They are spreading fear, hate, and slander.

Rather than showing themselves to be legitimate apologists, they have proven repeatedly that they are actually torch-bearing witch-hunters seeking targets of opportunity—i.e., public figures that they can conveniently mold and shape (via false accusations and misrepresentation) into some heretic/apostate using cult-like psychological manipulation tactics on those who read their cyberspace venom. Their modus operandi is much like the one used by Commie-hunters during the infamous McCarthy Era of the 1950s and its so-called “hearings,” wherein innocent persons were accused left and right of being Communists based on false evidence, groundless speculation, and trumped up charges (see the semi-documentary movie, Good Night, and Good Luck).

As I previously noted, it is my opinion that because the ODMs have attempted to make their false accusations stick in a similar manner, they have actually ventured well into the “cult” realm—at least from a psychological perspective (for the three ways any religious group of persons can be categorized as a cult, see Don’t Believe Everything You Read…On the Internet).

But as I also noted in my first article on this pressing topic, such persons (and their followers) have now begun to tread dangerously close to becoming a “cult” not only from a psychological perspective, but from a theological perspective as well. An good argument can be made for this observation based on the apparent willingness of these ODMs to add extra-biblical conditions of salvation to the pure Gospel, which is salvation by grace alone through faith alone. In fact, there is an ever-growing list of conditions being attached by the ODMs to the Gospel that include:

• the “biblical”/”Christian” way to think about politics and/or political candidates;
• the “biblical”/”Christian” position on certain theological issues over which believers can legitimately disagree;
• the “biblical”/”Christian” method of preaching from the pulpit;
• the “biblical”/”Christian” judgment of a specific pastor/teacher
• the “biblical”/”Christian” songs (or music styles) appropriate for worship;
• the “biblical”/”Christian” stand on what is appropriate entertainment for Christians (i.e., what music one can and cannot listen to, what movies one can and cannot watch, etc.);
• the “biblical”/”Christian” perspective on the end-times;
• the “biblical”/”Christian” take on debatable points of non-essential doctrines;
• the “biblical”/”Christian” limits on associations/friendships a believer can have with unbelievers;

The list goes on, and on, and on..........and on. The bottom line for them seems to be that if a person does not share THEIR exact mindset regarding one or more of the above, then that person is unregenerate, heretical, unsaved, lost, in need of repentance, apostate, or a deceiver. Such an attitude, of course, tramples a number of biblical verses that deal with freedom(s) in Christ (Rom. 14; Gal. 2:4) and passages indicating that Jesus is our Lord/Master before whom we stand or fall (Rom. 14:4). Also relevant are Christ’s words: “‘If you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free’” (John 8:31-32).

In other words, we are free in Christ from the “yoke of slavery.” (Galatians 5:1), which is not only a reference to the slavery to sin, death, and the world, but also any kind of slavery to rules/dos-and-don’ts (or the Law)—i.e., the kind of slavery that Pharisee-like religious leaders and misguided religious zealots invariably place on the backs of those seeking to follow God in humility, peace, joy, and spiritual freedom.

More importantly, and more obvious, is the fact that none of the items in the aforementioned “biblical”/”Christian” checklist are part of the pure and simple Gospel of Jesus Christ, which Paul clearly outlined in (1 Cor. 15:1-4):

“I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…”

It is the height of irony that these ODMs would add anything to the pure and simple Gospel because by doing so they are actually compromising the very Gospel that they are claiming to defend! And this is also what makes their words and actions so tragic.

ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY

A perfect example of such muddled thinking and misguided zeal appeared within the last few days at CRN.Info and Analysis when the highly opinionated and outspoken Chris Rosebrough (Extreme Theology), visited the blog, which had a thread/article posted about THE SHACK novel, William Young (the book’s author), and Young’s denial of the “Penal Substitutionary” THEORY of the atonement—i.e., only one of six theories on exactly HOW the atonement worked. The other theories are as follows (from Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Elwell, gen. ed.):

• The Subjective View or Moral Influence
• The Atonement As Victory
• Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory
• Governmental Theory
• Sacrifice

This “Penal Substitutionary” THEORY—the one with which I happen to agree—is a very popular and biblically sound explanation of how the atonement worked. But as already mentioned, it is only one of six THEORIES that Christians of varying persuasions may hold and still be orthodox in their faith, their acceptance of Christ, their love of God, and their biblical fidelity.

Each THEORY has its strengths and weaknesses. And some are more weak than others. For example, the “Subjective View or Moral Influence” theory is rather weak in the opinion of its critics, and when considered thoughtfully, so they say, it makes little sense and does not adequately take into account the substance of various biblical passages such as Isaiah 53.

Obviously, a person would certainly be justified in voicing an opinion in favor of one of these theories as being more correct to them and/or more logical from their perspective—and therefore, in their eyes, the more biblically sound explanation of precisely HOW the atonement worked. Fine. Excellent.

But at the CRN.Info blog thread, Rosebrough went much further, saying: “Penal Substitution is a non-negotiable part of the gospel. . . . Penal Substitution IS the heart of the atonement. To deny that is to deny God’s Word and [to deny that is] to twist the gospel into a false gospel.”

Unfortunately for Rosebrough, 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 (see above). His assertions, in my opinion, are the height of unbiblical commentary, and ironically, are themselves arguably heretical (since it is heretical to change, or add anything to, the Gospel, including some non-Gospel-related bits of knowledge or some debatable theory).

A far more biblical/balanced view of these theories comes to us from Christian scholar Leon Morris Ph.D—Cambridge University, Formerly Principle, Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia. In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Walter Elwell, ed.), he notes:

“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.” (p. 102).

In other words, the heart of the Gospel has nothing to do with any academic theories associated with the mysterious and metaphysical ins-and-outs of exactly HOW God did what he did through Christ—no matter how much a person might want to link the two together.

The heart of the Gospel is JESUS—his life, his death on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead! He alone is not only the chief cornerstone of the church (Eph. 2:20), but also the very foundation of it (1 Cor. 3:11).

Even in Hebrews 6:1-3, where we have a listing of the elementary/foundational teachings of biblical truths, there is no mention of any “Penal Substitutionary” theory. The initial teachings of the faith are noted as follows:

• repentance from acts that lead to death,
• faith in God,
• instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Clearly, the "Penal Substitution" theory is not part of the Gospel in its sufficiency to save (i.e., commonly referred to as simply "the Gospel" per 1 Cor. 15:1-4), let alone a "non-negotiable" part of the Gospel in its sufficiency to save (i.e., commonly referred to as simply "the Gospel" per 1 Cor. 15:1-4). To say that it is actually part of "the Gospel" (i.e., that which is outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4), 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. And to declare that a denial of the “Penal Substitution” theory makes for a “false gospel” is not only unbiblical, but narrow-minded, overly-zealous, simplistic, and divisive. (Note: my wording in this paragraph has been slightly altered from the original wording for clarification purposes after: 1. various objections were raised about my phrasing; and 2. various misrepresentations were made about my views regarding Penal Substitution).

This is a perfect example of how the ODMs are attaching non-Gospel issues to the real Gospel (i.e., the simple Gospel that saves per 1 Cor. 15:1-4), and by doing so, they are indirectly changing the Gospel message, which in turn is pushing them further toward being part of a theological cult of so-called discerners.(Note: my wording in this paragraph has been slightly altered from the original wording for clarification purposes after: 1. various objections were raised about my phrasing; and 2. various misrepresentations were made about my views regarding Penal Substitution).

ADDING TO THE GOSPEL

Adding anything to the Gospel is the standard line that must NOT be crossed when it comes to the purity and simplicity of the Good News of Jesus Christ. Consider these remarks, which are but a small sampling of similar statements (countless in number) that have been made for decades by orthodox, conservative, Bible-believing, God-honoring followers of Christ:

“How to Avoid Becoming a Cult Victim” . . . when you add to the gospel, you change the gospel. The addition of Mosaic regulations was in the nature of a complete repudiation of the all sufficiency of Christ’s redemption. So whether as restrictive legalism, permissive liberalism, or cultic perversion, any teaching that adds to or takes away from God’s revealed truth is a distortion of the gospel and perverts the nature and the work of Christ.”
(Pastor Stephen Felker Swift Creek Baptist Church, February 22, 2004).

“The moment we add to the gospel message (as Paul is at such pains to point out in Galatians), we have a different “gospel message” (which of course is no gospel at all). . . . There is not a cult or a sect out there which does not teach Justification by Works! And Justification by Works is rightly considered an age-old Christian heresy because it renders the gospel virtually meaningless. The particular form of ‘works’ will vary according to the group”
(Museltof Countercult and Apologetics, UK, “Rooting Armstrongism out of Ex-Worldwide Church of God Folk”).

“Like all the cults I mentioned and every other cult in the past and today, the cultists want to change the fundamentals of the gospel of Jesus and/or add to that gospel additional rules, regulations, and things that one must ‘know’ are true. . . . When cults add to the gospel, primarily by adding works that one must accomplish, rituals that one must perform, or even knowledge that one must know, they attack and deny the sufficiency of Christ”
(Todd Leroy, “1 John 2:7-29 Bible Study Leading,” http://www.disposablechristian.org/)

Ironically, even an ODM web site declares the following: “…to add to the Gospel destroys the work on the cross. Sabbatarians need to quit majoring in the minor issues and major on the major ones, the saving power of Christ crucified for salvation and the Christian life under grace. It will matter little which day you worshipped on, if your life did not start or end in the cross.”

I could easily re-arrange this statement a bit in order to better fit the current discussion: “…to add to the Gospel destroys the work on the cross. Chris Rosebrough needs to quit majoring in the minor issues and major on the major ones, the saving power of Christ crucified for salvation and the Christian life under grace. It will matter little which man-made atonement THEORY you believed was the most biblical, if your life did not start or end in the cross.”

ANOTHER RESPECTED APOLOGIST SPEAKS OUT!

In the interest of fairness to Chris Rosebrough, I sought the opinion of a trusted, reliable, and well-respected fellow apologist. I forwarded to her Rosebrough’s comments about penal substitution being part of the gospel and asked for her observations. The response was most interesting.

I am speaking here of none other than Rosebrough’s fellow Lutheran, Gretchen Passantino-Cobern, of the famous Bob & Gretchen Passantino ANSWERS IN ACTION ministry team (before Bob’s death). Gretchen is highly regarded as a top-notch apologist/researcher with a thoroughly conservative faith.

Gretchen, it should be noted, is very well known to Chris Rosebrough and is respected by him (last I heard). In fact, she and her husband Bob were closely connected to him as he began studying apologetics several years ago at Concordia University. Moreover, as recently as 2007, Rosebrough wrote an apologetic article for Answers In Action titled “Archeological Identity Theft: The Lost Tomb of Jesus Fails to Make the Grade.” Chris has even worked for Answers in Action as a “[l]ong-time Answers In Action supporter & volunteer” (see “Christian Response to Controversial Discovery Channel Special Purporting to Find the Tomb of Jesus & His Family”).

I presented Rosebrough’s quotes to Gretchen, who responded with grief and sadness over his apparent spiral into the depths of the ODM community. She called such behavior tragic and cited it as an example of how he and others are actually fighting AGAINST the very Gospel they are claiming to defend. She made the following statement and gave me permission to post it publicly as her official response and position on the ODMs now littering the Internet:

When ODM people make such strident & narrow charges against other Christians, even against pastors & other Christian leaders, they are guilty of breaking the commandment about not bearing false witness.

They don’t even have to say anything false, they just have to say it with rigidity & condemnation & they stifle their target’s ability to be used by God—flaws & all—in extending the kingdom through the preaching of the simple gospel.

When ODM people demand their own brand of sophisticated, theologically complex ‘orthodoxy’ to keep them from denouncing anyone else, they also prohibit young & growing Christians from candidly sharing their faith in their own unsophisticated, simple way from fear of intimidation by those more articulate.

Finally, when ODM people demand completely precise & complex theological jargon from every Christian who speaks or writes about his faith, they abort any candid theological development through discussion; “iron sharpening iron” becomes “knives slicing bloodily through the sheep.”

There would never have been lay evangelism or theological development or common martyrdom if the early church had been cursed with the high-handed judgmentalism of the ODM community.

Gretchen Passantino-Cobern
Answers In Action
March 19, 2009

So speaks another legitimate apologist against the ODMs. I again urge all of my readers to be very careful and Don’t Believe Everything Your Read….On the Internet.

Richard Abanes
Pop Culture Mix

(Note: Not all websites/blogs committed to offering discernment/apologetics information is included in this category of Online Discernment Ministries. I am exclusively applying that term to a very specific kind of apologetic/discernment organization/person that is active on the Internet. These types of persons/organizations are more akin to witch-hunters than professional apologists or even lay/responsible apologists. This article is a part of a new series on ODMS as a PoP cULtUre MiX Special Feature).

* * * * *
UPDATE & RESPONSE
(IMPORTANT)

On April 9, 2009, it was brought to my attention that the contents of this post was misrepresented by an "apologist" on a private subscriber's news service used by apologists. The following statement clarifies my views as expressed in the post:

Response & Statement: Penal Substitution

The reason for my reference to Penal Substitution in the blog post "ODM Update: Another Apologist Speaks Out Against the ODMs" involves my disagreement with the argument being made by some people that.....


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.

The fact of the matter is that throughout the early years of the church, the Early Church Fathers held primarily to the "Ransom to Satan" view of the atonement. Yet somehow they were saved, knew God, and were preaching the Gospel. We must not forget that the Penal Substitution Theory/View, as we have it today, is a a refined/complex doctrine derived from scripture that was formalized during the Reformation and post-Refomation era. So, in quick summation: