Stott again: “Anybody who rejects the apostolic gospel no matter who he may be, is himself to be rejected. He may appear as ‘an angel from heaven.’ In this case we are to prefer apostles to angels. We are not to be dazzled, as many people are, by the person, gifts or office of teachers in the church. They may come to us with great dignity, authority and scholarship. They may be bishops or archbishops, university professors or even the pope himself. But if they bring a gospel other than the gospel preached by the apostles and recorded in the New Testament, they are to be rejected. We judge them by the gospel; we do not judge the gospel by them.”

Scott, I notice you didn`t have any scripte references, but John Stott and friends will do.

*Sourced from http://scottjhiggins.com/after-hellfire-brimstone-what-regaining-confidence-in-the-gospel/

Nothing controversial in this. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology article on atonement reads “None of them [ie NT writers] sets out a theory of atonement…We are left in no doubt about its efficacy and its complexity. View the human spiritual problem as you will, and the cross meets the need. But the NT does not say how it does so.” The article then goes on to overview different theories of atonement that have emerged through the centuries, including the emergence of penal substitution theory with the Reformers.