The Wrath of God Poured Out

I don't think anyone is "especially worth believing" when it comes to doctrine. In fact, I believe this is a problem contributing to biblical illiteracy today. Sometimes people take the short cut of believing people they like, admire, or agree with on other issues.

Piper did write a fairly good critique of Wright's NPP, though. It has it's flaws (like questioning whether the conclusions of the Reformers should be questioned), but overall I think Piper makes good points.

D.A. Carson is strong on Penal Substitution Theory. I like that he acknowledges it as one theory among others. I envy you for the opportunity to hear him speek.

 

I’m not sure what to make of your constant reference to N.T. Wright. He is a brilliant scholar, and while I disagree with much of his theology I don’t mind the comparison so much (even if it is misplaced).

That said, I also find your comparison sad. It implies that you are ignorant, at least in part, to a few simple facts:

1. The NPP is not a theory of Atonement.
2. The NPP did not originate with Wright.
3. Wright’s NPP is, by his own admission, incomplete (an “open” theory).
4. I do not affirm the NPP.

It also implies that you are ignorant to several facts of Christus Victor:

1. Christus Victor did not originate with N.T. Wright.
2. Many (people and theories) reject God being wrathful towards Christ
3. Wright holds ideas other than Christus Victor in his theory of Atonement
4. Ransom/Christus Victor is the “classic view”, Christus Victor is the majority view within Christianity.
5. N.T. Wright does not represent the beliefs of the majority of those who reject PST.
6. It appears you have a “man crush” on N.T. Wright.
7. I do not affirm Wright’s view of the Atonement (I believe he focuses too much on the social and historical aspects of first century Judaism.
8. There are many theories under the "Christus Victor" theme.


Joyce Meyer believes that the Cross was God punishing Jesus with the punishment we would have received at Judgment. Is it fair to say that you affirm Joyce Meyer's theology of the Cross?

 

You are wrong. I do not believe "fairness" even comes into play. Also, as demonstrated on the TGC website, Wright's theory falls within PST. I believe PST wrong.

To help me understand your view.....you do hold Joyce Meyer's theology of the cross....correct?

 

But your view is very close to Joyce Meyers in that you both believe Christ experienced what the lost will at Judgment....correct?

 

But your view that God punished Jesus with what the lost will experience at Judgment is Meyer's theology, and your view is very similar to hers (you think God considered Jesus a sinner).....correct?

 

@Yeshua1 , I just looked it up. JM does not believe Jesus sinned but that He became sin. So is it fair to say in this context that you adhere to Joyce Meyer's theology of the cross?

I mean, your view is at least very close to her's....correct?

 

Are you saying, then, that God saw Jesus as the Holy and blameless Son of God but still treated Him as if He was a sinner? How does this line up with the character of God, that it is an abomination to treat the righteous as if they were guilty?

 

This is what N.T. Wright wrote and why some people believe that he holds to Penal Substitution Theory (as he claims) while also holding other ideas of the Atonement:

“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.”

 

Yep. Just to show you can't judge a persons theology based on the forwards they wright.

Too many people look for traditions and groups to follow. They can't grasp how someone like John MacArthur could possibly write the forward for a book by John Piper because of their theological differences. Or how a Baptist could support a work from Gordon Fee. Or even how Piper could praise Wright's scholarship and work on Paul while rejecting his NPP.

I think this is just evidence that people want someone to follow. Men simply like tradition and having a "tribe-like" mentality. When someone "steps out of line" it creates issues.

In life, however, these traditions don't always hold. Scholarship sometimes appreciates scholarship even when disagreement exists.