Comments on adrianwarnock.com: The Atonement - N. T. Wright Attacks Both Sides of...

The authors of Pierced for our Transgressions have...

2007-04-24T21:10:00.000+01:00

The authors of Pierced for our Transgressions have written a response to N.T. Wright:
http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/view/107/51/

It still remains a fact that you cannot claim that...

2007-04-24T20:25:00.000+01:00

It still remains a fact that you cannot claim that the endorsers of the book 'Pierced for our Transgressions' have made their endorsements without actually reading the book. You do not possess any proof to back it up.
That being the case your comments are a poor effort to impugn the reputations of the endorsers by inference.
Thankfully most people will see it for what it is.

If you do not agree with the contents of the book, fine, but please stop trying to impugn the people who support it.

Bluefish,You write,I'm not denying that it happens...

2007-04-24T18:10:00.000+01:00

Bluefish,

You write,

I'm not denying that it happens. I just think forming a suspicion about many of the endorsers because Packer has admitted not reading a book he endorsed in the past... It's pretty serious to suggest the same of 'many' others who endorse it.

I could provide factual background to Peter's comment. His comment has a basis that I am not allowed to publicize on this site. As you see this site is moderated.

Peter,I'm not denying that it happens. I just thin...

2007-04-24T14:43:00.000+01:00

Peter,

I'm not denying that it happens. I just think forming a suspicion about many of the endorsers because Packer has admitted not reading a book he endorsed in the past... It's pretty serious to suggest the same of 'many' others who endorse it.

I felt like the authors of PFOT were being very generous and accomodating of a New Perspective view of things - wanting to stand with them rather than against them. I accept that they could have talked more about the gospels - but you can't put everything in a book.

He critiques them for overlooking Luther and Anslem but they explicitly admit to doing so and recommend further reading since they've just highlighted a few historical figures and focussed mostly on the early church... which seemed fair enough when their critics claim that Anslem and later people are the first occurances of the doctrine... they prove the point by going earlier.

Critique is fine but it needs to be careful. Consequently with Chalke I've sought only critique Redeeming the Cross because I've not read The Lost Message. I may have erred in this - easy to be careless with words in the blogosphere.

Adrian, interesting that you deleted your response...

2007-04-24T13:00:00.000+01:00

Adrian, interesting that you deleted your response to Denny, after I posted a comment about this response.

Bluefish, I have no specific evidence that any of those who endorsed Pierced for our Transgressions did not read it. But see the comments (mine and Charity's) on this post for evidence that this sometimes happens with Christian books, two cases, one involving one of the endorsers of Pierced for our Transgressions.

Daniel wrote: "It seems like now both Tom Wright and Steve Chalke are happier to dismiss penal subsitution". Daniel, did you read what Wright wrote? He clearly endorsed rather than dismissed penal substitution. What he dismisses is the view you call a caricature. Are you sure that that is not in fact your view? As I said before, you need to make up your mind: is the view which Wright dismisses a caricature of PSA, in which case you should agree with him, or is it the view of PSA which you hold, in which case you should stop accusing him of discussing a caricature. You can't have it both ways.

Peter D, I accept that Jesus bore the punishment for sin in himself. I do not accept that the agent of that punishment was the Father acting separately from the Son. I might allow "Jesus punished himself". But I do not allow "God punished Jesus", which to me is more or less the same as the "caricature" version which everyone here seems to reject. And I can happily agree with your last paragraph.

There does appear to be many points of divergence....

2007-04-24T12:32:00.000+01:00

There does appear to be many points of divergence.

There are those like Jeffrey John who appear to reject the notion of penal substitution altogether. People seem to have a problem with God being angry at sin. It is good that NT Wright shows that if God were not angry at sin, He could not be loving.

However, there seems to be a more subtle point of divergence - an acceptance that God punished sin in Christ, but not an acceptance that God punished Christ in our stead.

I'm finding it difficult to see how the two can go together. If Christ "became sin" for us, how can He not have borne the punishment for that sin - in Himself?

At the same time, I am troubled by references made to "an angry God and a loving Jesus, with a God who demands blood and doesn't much mind whose it is as long as it's innocent." (From Wright's article)

While Wright and others claim to oppose this caricature of the doctrine of penal substitution (blaming it on those who expound the doctrine), I don't know of any proponent of penal substitution who teaches the doctrine in such a way - that is not the doctrine at all. No wonder that is a problem if it is being caricatured in that way.

When we say that Christ bore our punishment, we are not speaking of an bad God and a good Son. We are speaking of a loving God who gave His Son, and a loving Saviour who offered Himself.

It seems like now both Tom Wright and Steve Chalke...

2007-04-24T11:00:00.000+01:00

It seems like now both Tom Wright and Steve Chalke are happier to dismiss penal subsitution on the basis of their "angry Father/innocent Son" caricature, despite the nuanced Trinitarian view presented by Ovey, Sach and Jeffrey. They seem happier to assert that anyone who teaches PSA is adhering to the caricature, rather than saying that the likes of PFOT and UCCF and others are actually being much more exegetically careful than they're giving credit for.

The more I read of N. T. Wright, the less I understand where he's coming from. He does seem to enjoy carving-out an ostensible 'middle groud' for himself.

Not very encouraging.

"I suspect that many of those who commended this b...

2007-04-24T09:26:00.000+01:00

"I suspect that many of those who commended this book did not actually read it (not being as careful as Wright is to read books in detail before commending them)"

Because NT Wright is above reproach but slandering others is ok? If you have evidence that "many of those who commend this book" then fine - state it and call for their repentance.

I am having some difficulty reconciling the nature...

2007-04-24T08:00:00.000+01:00

I am having some difficulty reconciling the nature of this debate with a solid understanding of what systematic theology is and is not. After reading Wright's article and Carson's review, I then read Carson's article here on the nature of biblical and sustematic theology.

As its name suggests, systematic theology attempts to organize, to systematize, theological reflection. When the primary authoritative source for that theological synthesis and reflection is the Bible, systematic theology attempts to organize what the Bible says according to some system. The traditional tenfold division of topics is certainly not the only possiblity. But even to choose topics, to hierarchialize them, is to impose a structure not transparently given in Scripture itself. In any case, such theological reflection inevitably emerges out of one epistemology or another, out of a particular cultural consciousness, and such matters will become correspondingly more influential in the system to the degree that the theologian is unaware of them or holds, naively, that they have little or no influence.

I hope that those who critque Wright are able to properly place their critique in the context of their own human need to establish a hierarchy and order that is not transparent in the scriptures itself.

It must be recognized that Penal substitution theory, and its subcategories, is a particular human systematisation of the scriptures.

My response to Bishop Wright is simply "Amen!" The...

2007-04-24T00:25:00.000+01:00

My response to Bishop Wright is simply "Amen!" There is hardly a point in the whole long article with which I cannot happily agree (within the limits of my knowledge as I have not actually read Pierced for our Transgressions). What more can I add?

Well, I can add a response to Adrian's comments. He rejects the statement "God punished sin in Jesus, but not that Jesus Himself was punished for sin". Now if God and Jesus were separate people not working together, these two things would indeed be nearly the same thing. But in fact God was in Jesus, not separate from him, and as such in Jesus he dealt with the punishment of sin, but in a way which cannot be characterised as "God punished Jesus" unless it makes sense to say "God punished himself".

I am glad that Bishop Wright has dared to puncture the hype about Pierced for our Transgressions. I suspect that many of those who commended this book did not actually read it (not being as careful as Wright is to read books in detail before commending them) but simply jumped on a bandwagon, and maybe some of the commendations were written for them - despite Glenn Piper's doubts, it is well known that this happens in evangelical circles.

I am glad that Wright has spoken to Steve Chalke and obtained from him an explanation of what he actually means by the "notorious passage". I agree that it would be better still if Chalke could make a public statement clarifying his beliefs, although I don't think he would choose this blog as the place to do so. In fact he has made a statement by publicly endorsing the Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith, which includes "The substitutionary sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God as the sole all-sufficient ground of redemption from the guilt and power of sin, and from its eternal consequences." I am not sure what more Adrian would like Chalke to say. Of course Adrian would like an apology, but why should Chalke apologise that other people have misunderstood him?

Meanwhile it would be amusing if it were not so sad to see in the first two comments here an example of how people are falling over one another to condemn people for not believing in "proper" PSA. Denny Burk says that he is about to "out" Wright himself as a non-PSA-believer, and Adrian can't wait to correct what he wrote a few hours earlier, such that Wright is no longer sitting on the fence but has put himself firmly beyond the PSA pale. I can only wonder how much further this will go. Will someone perhaps find that Stott or Packer has commended one of Wright's books (after all, Packer commends a lot of books) and not clearly distanced himself from Wright's faulty PSA, and so Stott or Packer must also become outcasts? Where will this kind of witch-hunt end? Will Adrian himself become a victim when someone finds he said nice things about Stott's book? But then, is this really the Christian way to go about things?

Dear Adrian,I read Wright's essay, and I have to s...

2007-04-23T21:34:00.000+01:00

Dear Adrian,

I read Wright's essay, and I have to say that I came to a different conclusion from you. No where in the article does Wright affirm the idea of God pouring out His personal wrath against sin upon Jesus on the cross. The wrath is never spoken of in personal terms, it's always the "evil forces" around Jesus, or something like that.

When Wright affirms Chalke's definition (the "a" versus the "b"), this is not a definition that squares with the penal substitution view.

I have a blog set to post later on this evening in response to Wright's article. It's titled "N. T. Wright Dismisses Penal Substitution."

Thanks,
Denny
www.dennyburk.com