Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory is not only a distorted view of the cross, it’s also completely false. Listen as our hosts dissect, dismantle, and disembowel one of the worst Christian doctrines anyone ever dreamed up. Plus, big news about the identity of our new co-hosts!
Big thanks to Wild Foods for sponsoring the show and offering our listeners 12% off with coupon code HAPPYHOUR12.
Heretic Happy Hour is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com
Excellent episode! I look forward to more Heretic Happy Hour 2.0.
I can't tell you how much I struggled with Paul (former pastor here.) I felt angered and hurt by his writings frequently. It was refreshing to hear "F*ck you, Paul." I find so much comfort in knowing that I am not alone and I love being challenged by new views.
Thank you all.
While I hail your willingness to question so many of the historical concepts of biblical theology I find myself very uncomfortable with your tendency to take issues that the Bible doesn't directly address or completely address and you make the very same error as those you oppose. In other words, if you recognize the Bible stopped short of providing a clear and dogmatic answer to the question you are wrestling with you bundle together a variety of passages that "might" or "might not" support the theory you are espousing and proceed to "settle" on an interpretation or conclusion with insufficient evidence to do so. I think it would be far better to say something like "Look, I'm well aware there are a variety of positions that could be taken on this issue (whatever that issue might be) and while I'm predisposed to think the truth is (....) I'm going to say that the strongest I can be on this that it "might" teach this or it "might" teach that and we just can't be certain." Instead you go "all dogmatic" on things you know there is insufficient biblical support for arriving at such dogmatism on. It is this tendency that leans me towards thinking "These guys are really genuinely Heretics, rather than just guys who are wrong about things." It is a good thing to question doctrines that lack full biblical support but I think it is a bad thing to form final conclusions for things it doesn't provide sufficient evidence for such dogmatic conclusions. In this concern I would certainly include your conclusions on abortion, hell, inspiration, etc. It seems to me you go way beyond what is written and for this reason it strikes me as dangerous to give much credibility to the things you espouse.