I like N. T. Wright - I really do. I know that makes me suspect in the eyes of some but I have read the first two of his big fat books and they were immensely helpful, even though I am not on board with him in every say.
So, a couple of days ago I find some comments that he believes in penal substitution and I do the dance for joy, that he has spoken out on this important issue. Now, as Adrian and others report he has clarified his comments in an article here. And those clear blue waters just got muddier.
I won't go into all of the details and frankly I don't understand all of the hairs he is splitting. But apparently he is not happy with the position of one Jeffrey John who he says caricatures the cross, but he also doesn't like the position of the authors of Pierced for our Transgressions, a modern defense of penal substitution.
While Adrian is perplexed, to say the least, Alastair.Adversaria defends Wright here. The authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions have responded here (HT - Justin Taylor). The Ugly Vicar expresses concern over Wright's position here. Doug Wilson is quite puzzled by Wright and praises the authors of Pierced here. Jim Hamilton asks some important questions here. And D. A. Carson expresses his annoyance at some things Wright says about the atonement in a recent book. To quote Carson:
Finally, a few merely annoying things. (1) Why is it that everyone else’s understanding of the atonement can be repeatedly dismissed as mere abstract theories of the atonement, while his own presentation escapes the rubric? Are not the (other) “theories of the atonement” grounded, in their writers’ minds, in what actually happened, in what God actually accomplished? And does not Wright’s own understanding of what God actually accomplished constitute another “theory of the atonement”? The shift in terminology is merely a way of dismissing the views of others and sanctifying his own. (2) More broadly, Wright has a penchant for replicating the Elijah syndrome: “And I, even I only, am left.” To offer but one of many examples: “The trouble with imagining the future world is that we’ve all been given the wrong impression” (114). Well, I suppose we should be grateful that we have now been given the Wright impression.
The only two cents I have to offer in this whole thing is to remember something I believe John Frame said, or it might have been Frame as quoted by Richard Pratt. Frame said that truth does not equal precision, nor does precision equal truth. Something can be vague and still true.
I don't take this to mean that vagueness is to be preferred over precision, if something is spoken with precision then we err if we make it vague. At the same time, something can be vague and still be true.
It seems to me that in some of this Wright is narrowing and narrowing his definitions to such a precise point and then claiming that they all err who don't see it this way. Again, I like Wright and am not calling him a heretic, but I do think Carson has a point about the Elijah syndrome.
I also don't mean to overly simplify things here - I understand there are nuances to the penal substitution issue and areas where precision is called for. But in all of that, I fear an overzealous quest for precision may cause us to miss the glorious simplicity that Jesus, as our substitute paid the penalty for our sins, thus freeing us from the wrath of God.
Related Tags: Religion, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Doctrine, Penal Substitution, Atonement, N. T. Wright
Recent Comments