But Pauline Justification Theology is inspired, in the background of Penal Substitution as seen by framework of Sacrificial OT system and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, not of what NT Wright redefines in his atonement theology
What Paul wrote has nothing to do with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. NT Wright insists that Jesus is the Suffering Servant of Isaiah.
Here Wright has a better point than did Calvin. Wright takes Isaiah 53 as a whole rather than lifting verses to support the Penal Substitution Theory.
Think about Isaiah 53. How and under what power did, according to Isaiah 53, suffer? He suffered unjust oppression under the powers of evil, under the powers of sinners who lacked understanding. How was Jesus, according to Isaiah 53, forsaken? He was forsaken to suffer and die rather than being rescued from that fate by God, but He was never abandoned.
Penal Substitution theorists ignore Isaiah 53 and choose to extract verses to support the conclusion they had already made.
You make an error in taking "Pauline Justification" as a concept Paul introduced. Theee is Justification- NOT "Pauline Justification".
Wright is not saying at all Reformed nor Baptist Atonement theology . but redefying the terms once again and different vested meanings
Kinda. It depends on what you mean by "Reformed". Luther, for example, is a Reformer but he did not teach Penal Substitution Theory (he never reworked or departed from Aquinas' theory, and this was not his focus). Also, not all Baptists accepted the Penal Substitution Theory.
Wright is an Anglican bishop. He is considered Reformed mostly because he defined Reformed Pauline theology for much of his career. He was "the" expert scholar for Reformed churches prior to concluding that they had made an error.
The truth is that He hates the concept of saying that God the Father judged Jesus as accepting for our sake our wrath and punishment's, as thinks that would be a pagan concept, hates that the Father Imputed Jesus rightiousness to our behalf, and hates Pauline Justification, so he should not be viewed as being at all either Pauline Justification in Reformed or Baptist sense.
This is false. It is also a dishonest assumption.
Wright held this position for much of his ministry. The reason he changed is he identified (correctly) that Calvin made a mistake and that was passed on in Penal Substitution Theory. He is correct on that part.
The reason Wright rejects the theory (I actually agree he rejects Penal Substitution Theory) is what he has studied about the OT, the 1st century Jewish people, and Paul's writing.
I believe Penal Substitution Theory is a corruption of Scripture and a departure from the Christian faith in terms of Christ's work of redemption. It has nothing to do the concept of Jesus suffering God's wrath. It has to do with what is written in Scripture.