Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum

I don't necessarily agree with Wright, BUT that doesn't mean he holds a diminished view of the Atonement and denies propitiation - which was the charge.

My point is that it is wrong to falsely attribute things to people just because we believe them wrong on certain issues.

 

Where did Paul place our hope? In the Resurrection. Your theory of atonement is too small, brother. It is not about saving sinners but about God's glory and His Kingdom.

Sure, you have your ticket to heaven. But when you realize it is not about you, not about man, but about God and His own glory, then and only then can you truly appreciate the atonement for all it encompasses.

 

I disagree (partly because I remember just how much Wright has contributed to evangelical scholarship and theology.... until his NPP his differences were not considered substantial and even now many of his opponents ....e.g., John Piper ... hold him in high regard).

Much of the issue is that we approach the atonement differently. N.T. Wright is Reformed, but he is Anglican. While he acknowledges penal substitution in the atonement (defining it in a way I do not believe to be PSA) his focus is on Christus Victor (which is not unorthodox). So he acknowledges with a side note aspects that most of use seem to hold as primary.

In Romans 8 Paul speaks of Christ’s work as a deliverance out of bondage. This is, to many, a side note to the Cross as a propitiation. When we look at it we tend to see that the believer is delivered from the bondage of sin and death (Christus Victor Motif). BUT if your focus was more on Christus Victor and less on PSA, then you might also note that Paul has the audacity to claim that Creation itself awaits this deliverance – groaning along side us in anticipation.

For the creation was subjected to futility in hope that the creation itself al\so will be set free form its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

We like to view this as a side note, almost chalking it up to poetic niceties as all of creation will instead be burnt up and a new one will take its place. But Scripture views the redemption that Creation awaits as if it were akin to our redemption, to our refinement by fire, to our recreation.

N.T. Wright is not being unbiblical here. He is focusing on a truth that we too often glance at sideways, and perhaps glossing over a truth many hold essential. In the article, everything Wright has stated in terms of belief is in the Bible. Nothing that his opponent (in the article) has stated is actually in Scripture itself. While I may not necessarily agree with Wright, I can’t fault him for taking the Bible literally when the opposing view rests on what they see as implied.

So I recommend N.T. Wright for his scholarship but caution against blindly adopting what he says. Wright is like C.S. Lewis. There is great depth of truth there, but you have to be cautious of the bones.

 

Read the article again. He denies the Calvinistic theory, but he also points to how some take that theory as being paganism. And he is correct.

 

Yes, he certainly is not a traditionalist.

 

What Wright presents in the article (what he affirms as belief) comes directly from Scripture. The opposition (in the article) comes from what is determined to be implied in the Scripture. As the article points out, there is a tendency among a specific group of people to believe Jesus had to suffer what the lost will at Judgment. This was Calvin's view, and this is common among some Reformed groups. But this is not the main Reformed view. It is neo-orthodox in the scheme of Christian history.

This, I believe, is what Wright (in the article) is speaking of. NOT the views of men like John Piper and J.I. Packer, even thought they may disagree with Wright on many points (both Piper and Packer rejected the idea that Jesus experienced in separation what the lost will experience at Judgment...the articles and posts are in a thread dealing with the topic). Even Calvin maintained a unity that this neo-orthodox view rejects.

 

I agree, as he starts out "I am not an expert on the subject". This is why many reject Wright, and probably the difference in how they reject him compared to how those who are experts reject him.

The author assumes 2000 years of viewing a certain way. In truth, we only know of 500 years. Also, Wright himself has stated his NPP is probably not right, that we need to move from the Reformation and to Scripture. The problem people have is not the NPP but the NPP's rejection of a 16th centurey Reformation/Catholic view of Paul and the Jewish religion.

This is, I believe, what Wright is addressing in the article - 5 centuries of tradition vs Scripture, with Reformed theology taking place of the RCC.

 

I think you need to look at the article again.

Give me a quote so I can reference what you are looking at.

The problem here is character assassination rather than dealing with what is actually said. You do not like men like N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis, D.W. Moody, and John Wesley because they reject some idea you hold essential to your faith (they all reject the neo-Calvinism you hold). BUT they do not reject what IS essential to THE faith.

 

I haven't been jumping topics, but instead have offered you God's Word itself. Perhaps you didn't recognize the passage because you were seeking milk rather than meat, but I was referring to Romans 8.

I agree that Jesus Christ came to save sinners. I just do not believe this is enough evidence to reject that Christ also come to” set creation itself free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:20-21).