Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Cabin Fever

Enemies of the Truth have once again been slithering their way into “Evangelical” Christianity. This first segment of Cabin Fever is going to very briefly mention the doctrine of penal substitution. Two of the fastest growing movements under the umbrella of evangelicalism have recently slandered this foundational truth. Shack-o-philes and The Emergent Church.

Of late I listened as William Young, author of The Shack, flatter himself as he openly rejected the Biblical teaching that Christ suffered the wrath of God while He hung on the tree. Young’s false god in the Shack teaches that she does not need to punish sin because the consequences of sin in our lives are punishment enough. One person rightly responded to this error by stating...according to Young, humans have already satisfied the punishment for sin, therefore Young’s unjust and unloving god would simply arbitrarily be sending an unbeliever to hell, as everyone has atoned for their own sin.

Another apostle of error, Steve Chalke (an Emergent Church Leader) likens penal substitution to some kind of “cosmic child abuse”. This reference is so full of folly, words can’t correctly state how excuseless it is to make such a comparison.

These attackers, along with countless others throughout the history of Christianity, all seem to get worked up about God punishing His innocent Son. They do not like the idea and do not believe the Bible would teach... that in God’s court, in God’s economy...He has found His Son innocent but has proclaimed and treated Him guilty.

Here is a the annuls of human history and human courts....can anyone think of a man whom the court found innocent, but proclaimed guilty and treated as such?


Beyond Zaphon said...

I posted this a few weeks ago but removed it. After some thought I decided to re-post it. Alan made an excellent point regarding the book, along the lines of ......the presupposition isn’t an arbitrary God, but universalism. No one deserves to go to hell, therefore no one does. Actually, the thinking probably works the other way around: No one goes to hell, therefore no one deserves to. Or, God loves everyone, therefore no one will go to hell.

I stated :I think your comment is true. Based on what I have learned of the author it would not be fair to state the author would think God would send anyone to hell. The logic of the argument preposed remains true for people who adhere to the Shack but believe in Hell. It appears the author would not agree with the (premises of the) logic.

Beyond Zaphon said...

Rob Henzel
Invited me to his post regarding the same subject.