Featured Penal Substitution and the Trinity (again)

No, I do not refer to N.T. Wright.

Yes, N.T. Wright is within orthodox Christianity.

He would not be orthodox in terms of Baptist doctrine, of course, but in terms of Christianity he is well within the orthodox position. He is Anglican. Most argue against his "New Perspective on Paul" which is neither new nor his. I agree with Reformed theologians (like Piper) who say he has contributed much to our understanding but have questionable doctrines. Not unorthodox, but ideas that are unproven.

That is your opinion, but not mine. I do not know that merely stating our opinions or beliefs is helpful or edifying to anyone.

Scripture proves that position to you, that is why you hold it. Scripture proves it wrong to me, that is why I do not. Just making statements do not add to the dialogue. We need to discuss our differences and engage one another.

 

I agree, but mostly because too often people combat PSA falsely (like the cosmic child abuse charge). We see this with other topics as well.

Compare the above statement with what Christus Victor holds - that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer for us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

They are very close, but the little difference is not really that small. I think that this is the difference between a general penal substitution (or aspects of penal substitution....I'm not sure the best way of putting it) and Penal Substitution Atonement as either doctrine or theory.