...I just want to take a moment to clarify, with Wright’s own words, that Wright does affirm penal substitutionary atonement. He has been clear on this over the years, but somehow that’s been lost on many due in some cases to their willingness to read all sorts of faults into him because of his position on justification, or because to some people, affirming Christus Victor components to Christ’s atonement, the idea that in his life, death, and resurrection Jesus defeated the principalities and powers of satan, sin, and death, means a necessary denial of PSA. It doesn’t. The Reformers all affirmed both themes because both are in Scripture. Wright isn’t any different. So, without further ado here is Wright himself.
Wright Speaks
First, a short little video where Wright says it clear-out, 1:19 onward:
http://derekzrishmawy.com/2012/09/11/n-t-wright-on-penal-substitution/
Here is a classic case of same language but
perhaps different meaning. I saw and listened to the video very carefully. He has not the faintest understanding of the Old testament Sacrificial rites and ADMITS IT. However, he even goes further and denies the sacrificial system is essential to understanding the atonement of Christ. In so doing, he undermines the whole Biblical foundation for penal substitutionary atonement.
His admitted ignorance is in regard to the two goats on the day of Atonement, which is the sacrificial type that penal atonment is primarily defended from in the Old Testament. There were two goats used on the day of Atonement and both were essential to understanding the nature of the atonement. One of course had its blood shed UNTO DEATH thus giving the WHOLE LIFE and it was THE LIFE of a ceremonial acceptable sacrifice which typifies the perfect sinless life of Christ offered up to satisfy the righteous demands of the Law. The second goat had the sins confessed over it and then taken by a fit strong man into the wilderness and released, which typified the complete removal of our sins through Christ. Both goats taken together give the full picture of "penal" substitutionary atonement for the complete remission of sins.
The Christus Victorius false theory is defended by Wright's view of sacrifices, which makes them unnecessary and vague as the Christus Victorius view denies that any kind of sacrificial death is necessary, but at the same time does not deny that Christ did indeed die on the cross but his death on the cross was non-essential in regard to atonement. This is precisely the opinion of Wright in regard to the foundational Old Testament Type of Christ's atonement. So no wonder, he is accused of denying "penal" substitutionary Atonement as he does deny the very Biblical foundation that it rests upon in the Old Testament - which is the sacrificial system.
So with his mouth comes out both salt and fresh water. He denies any relationship between the Old Testament type and Christ's atonement. By so doing removes the Old Testament foundation upon which the langauge of the New Testament is based, but then admits the New Testament langauge stands alone for the case of "penal" substitutionary atonement.
His denial of the "penal" nature in the foundational Biblical types for the atonement opens the door to reinterpreting New Testament language for the Christus Victorius heresy.
However, to be fair to Professor Wright, I cannot say he does not believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement
at least in so far as he claims the langauge. However, he does deny and undermine all of the Old Testament typical foundation for the proper interpretation of the New Testament teaching for the doctrine he claims to embrace.
At this point, I will withdraw the charge of being a "heretic" until I can examine more than just his use of common language and see exactly how he defines that language. At present he is embracing the very core argument of the Christus Victorus that Old Testament sacrifices do not demand a penal substitutionary atonement and he is clearly in error and it is a significant error on his part, perhaps due to mere ignorance and need of proper teaching.
