This can only be brief, but it only needs to be. Here, Slice says: “Shack Author Denies Substitutionary Atonement.” I’m sorry to say, that this is simply not true. What the author denied is the Penal version of Substitionary atonement. The author of The Shack specifically states that he believes in some form of substitution and quotes 2 Corinthians 5:19 in support of it. It is simply not true that the author denied substitution. What he denied is the Reformed Calvinist version of substitution. What he denies is the penal version of the substitution. I think the author of Slice needs to correct the title of her post because Young specifically states that he believes in some form of substitution.
Now, just a couple of finer points. The person conducting the interview with Young states at the end a whole list of people, one who even did one whole sermon on The Shack that included ten whole points (!; talk about avoiding the Gospel!) (and others like Driscoll, Mohler as if anyone outside the SBC cares what Mohler thinks; as if we are not people with minds and can think on our own without these all powerful guardians; as if Driscoll is always right and never wrong and the ADM’s are always for Driscoll), who are ‘opposed’ to the book The Shack. What they didn’t do is include a whole list of people, theologians and preachers alike, who are not opposed to The Shack and there are many. The interview itself was little more than the interviewer trying his damnedest to convince Young that there is a literal hell (even after Young stated that he believed in Hell as literal). Young was gracious, but he was in the lion’s den. The interviewer was just beside himself that Young denied penal substitution is central to the Gospel. When Young tried to point out that there is actually great debate about this right now, the interviewer didn’t seem to care too much.
Young stated unequivocally, “I believe the only hope for any of us is Jesus.” That’s pretty clear to me. However, denial of the penal substitution is not a denial of the Gospel. It is a denial of a particular interpretation of the Gospel. There are many, many, many theologians who deny that penal substitution is the ‘core’ of the Gospel. Consider the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
The author of Slice needs to correct her post to reflect the truth because as it stands, it is simply wrong. Again, a denial of penal substitution is not the same as a denial of the Gospel. It is only in the minds of Reformed Calvinists and The Shack haters that penal substitution is the center of the Gospel. I don’t think you will find it in the Scripture.*
*The author of Slice does have it correct in her post, but not in her title. The title is misleading. The rest stands on it’s own as a criticism of what one considers ‘gospel.’
). So enough with this crap that just because you quote a verse and think you know what it means somehow means you “take Scripture seriously.”
[...] 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, [...]