You can be a Christian and deny essential doctrine

Insofar as Wright's influence, maybe he is a historical figure. We can't read MacArthur, Piper, Grudem, etc. without hints of Wright's Pauline contributions. But given his NPP I think this will remain history.

He is, however, a Reformed scholar who affirms PSA (as both you and Wright have defined PSA).

 

Yet he doesn't:

“On the cross Jesus took on himself that separation from God which all other men know. He did not deserve it; he had done nothing to warrant being cut off from God; but as he identified himself totally with sinful humanity, the punishment which that sinful humanity deserved was laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders… That is why he shrank, in Gethsemane, from drinking the ‘cup’ offered to him. He knew it to be the cup of God’s wrath. On the cross, Jesus drank that cup to the dregs, so that his sinful people might not drink it. He drank it to the dregs. He finished it, finished the bitter cup both physically and spiritually… Here is the bill, and on it the word ‘finished’ – ‘paid in full.’ The debt is paid. The punishment has been taken. Salvation is accomplished.” - N.T. Wright

 

No, but neither did Luther (remember the Luther quote), and neither did Martyr.

That is what I was saying when I wrote that you were not being honest in examining the topic. Luther did hold to a substitution view with the consequences of sin and wrath being "outweighed" by Christ (ontologically), Thomas Aquinas did with merit in mind, Justin Martyr in terms of the human race...but not one of these viewed Jesus as experiencing God's wrath just as a lost sinner does in Hell. Yet you considered them close enough to be PSA. Well, here's an honesty test for you. N.T. Wright also holds to a penal substitution even though he (along with Luther and Martyr) does not believe exactly like you.

The bottom line, of course, is that you are unable to support your view via Scripture. You simply lean on tradition and say "Calvin and Luther (and by implication, N.T. Wright) believes in PSA so it is true".

 

Here's the difference - Wright is closer to Martyr (actually, he is right there with Justin Martyr) and a bit closer to Luther. He looks at this wrath as against human sin in general. I also don't consider this PSA (but I don't consider Martyr and Luther to hold to PSA either). The ONLY reason I accept N.T. Wright as holding to PSA is through the definition that you guys have provided. Personally, I would classify Wright and Luther's view as presenting Christ as a representative rather than an actual substitute.

“Jesus, the innocent one, was drawing on to himself the holy wrath of God against human sin in general, so that human sinners like you and me can find, as we look at the cross, that the load of sin and guilt we have been carrying is taken away from us. Jesus takes it on himself, and somehow absorbs it, so that when we look back there is nothing there. Our sins have been dealt with, and we need never carry their burden again.” - N.T. Wright

Insofar as being Reformed in any sense that you would accept....well, I don't think that you and I are the criteria. He is Reformed whether we like it or not.

 

You are wrong. The bible says so.

 

Scripture?

 

So you think some guy named Tim Challies writes scripture? I am beginning to see why your posts seldom make any sense!

 

Because your idea of this sin debt is not biblical. That's why I've been asking over and over and over and over for a passage proving your theory. But, as we both know, there is none. You are giving tradition, not Scripture. And ever time I ask you start up with Calvin and Luther...or N.T. Wright....or anything except the Bible. And this has been going on for thread after thread after thread.

I keep thinking that sooner or later you are going to realize your theory is opinion based on theory and tradition rather than Scripture. But now I am starting to wonder if you will figure it out (I thought my request that you highlight the parts of Scripture that prove your point, and your inability to do so, would have done the trick....but I was wrong).

 

Scripture?