You did post about Wright
in your comment # 11.

“Where Wright goes off base is when he implies that sin is primarily an impersonal force and that the heart of the Gospel is the CVA theory.”

I just wondered if you had read the Wax article.

Blessings,

David

Primarily, I was only addressing John’s comments, because on one hand he says both are valid, but then spends the rest of his commenting complaining about the problems of PSA.

Just wondering if you read Trevin Wax’s article (link in # 20) and whether you have any responses to it.

“This understanding of Christ’s atoning death is also represented in 1 Peter (1:18-19; 2:22-25; 3:18). The Gospel of John focuses on the death of Jesus as the lifting-up of the Son of Man or the glorification of the Son of God, interpreting it in terms of vicarious atonement for sins (1:29; 3:16-17; 6:53–56; 8:24; 10:11, 15; 11:45-52; 13:1–11; 18:14; 19:34; 20:23), as well as the supreme revelation of God and his victory over Satan (16:33). The understanding of Christ’s death as a vicarious atonement is also reflected in 1 John (1:7; 2:2; 4:9-10) and Revelation (1:5-6; 5:6-12; 7:14; 12:10-11). Especially significant are the three powerful images of Jesus in the Johannine literature: “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), who as the paschal lamb and the servant of Yahweh (Isa 53:7, 11) is duly offered as a sacrifice by the High Priest (John 11:45-52; 18:14) on the Passover eve with blood pouring out from his side (John 19:34) for the eschatological atonement and redemption; “the lamb who was slain” sitting on God’s throne, having “ransomed [a people] for God by [his] blood” and so “freed us from our sins” (Rev 5:6-12; 1:5b); and the Son of God sent by God to be “the expiation/propitiation [hilasmos] for our sins” (1 John 2:2; 4:9-10). Hebrews focuses on Christ’s death as the covenant-establishing and atoning sacrifice as well as on his exaltation as the heavenly High Priest, with perhaps some faint echoes of penal substitution (cf. 2:9, 17; 9:15, 28).”

Sure, no where have you said that all holders of PSA deny CV. But you did say “most.” which is where I disagree. Most holders of PSA do not deny CV.

“The only reason I brought this up is because the way Iron’s final paragraph reads. Do you not see it? He sets it up like Wright has to believe either/or, not both/and.”

Once again, you are reading your on views into the context. The accusation against Wright is that HE holds to a either/or distinction! It is not that Iron is telling Wright that He has to chose between one view of the other or that it is wrong for Wright to hold to CV. Iron’s case is that Wright’s view of sin leads him to only hold the CV view of the atonement to the exclusion of PSA. So do you see the problem with your reading? Irons is not saying, “Wright is wrong in holding CV and must choose which one to hold” It is, “Wright is wrong is saying that CV is the only aspect of the atonement.”(You can disagree with the charge that Irons is bringing against Wright if you want to. I am not fully convinced of the charge myself.) but it is wrong to read into Irons a position that He does hold.

But that is just repeating what I stated before.

as for the other things you brought up,

“My only point is that, whenever an apologetic is given about PS, or whenever PS is discussed in a systematic textbook, the views are often presented as, “Okay, I’ve given you these four views, not you have to pick ONE, and that ONE should be penal substitution.””

Completely disagree from my experience. Read Schreiner’s “New Testament Theology” where he gives a whole section to the CV aspect of the atonement (though, he calls it something else). As for the “pick one” idea, Schreiner was asked to give the PSA doctrine for that book. If it presents a “pick one” mentality the blame is to be with the editor of the book, not the authors.

“however, just because they would agree with it does not mean that they ever mention it in their teaching or preaching. Seldom have I ever heard a pastor/teacher teach on CV”

Once again, another experiential argument. And how are we to know that you have listened to countless hours of sermons by PSA holders to witness all of them never mention CV? From my experience, I have heard Dr. Russell Moore (Dean of SBTS) integrate CV in his preaching countless times.

“Do you not agree with me that CV was the dominant view of the atonement held for the first 1,000 years of church history”

It might have been, but here is the problem for you, what is the view from God’s revelation? once again let me quote Dr. Seyoon Kim to give an introduction to the Biblical testimony for PSA,

If you want more you can read his article (http://sujetosalaroca.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/atonement.pdf)

“In my opinion, a Gospel that is exclusively PS portrays the most pessimistic view of humanity possible while giving a picture of a God who is an arbitrary & cruel dictator who is pissed off and needs to take his anger out on somebody.”

And that is your opinion, but it shows that you have little understanding of the true PSA. I believe that you need to do more reading from our side if you want to correct your distorted view of the doctrine.

I think you want me to believe that all advocates of penal substitution do not hold to CV, which I do not believe. My only point is that, whenever an apologetic is given about PS, or whenever PS is discussed in a systematic textbook, the views are often presented as, “Okay, I’ve given you these four views, not you have to pick ONE, and that ONE should be penal substitution.” One instance of this is in Bruce Demarest’s “Cross & Salvation,” while another is in the “4 views on the Atonement” book. The very nature of that book advocates that the author only holds to one view, and only one is correct. I would personally like to see an eclectic approach expounded, because the atonement is so deep & complex it cannot be reduced into a few short sentences & emphases. Agreed?

I couldn’t point you to a book that explicitly denies CV. I believe, when pressed, nearly 100% of the advocates of penal substitution would agree with CV. However, just because they would agree with it does not mean that they ever mention it in their teaching or preaching. Seldom have I ever heard a pastor/teacher teach on CV, while I’ve heard PS expounded upon hundreds of times. As I said above, for many PS is the Gospel, nothing more, nothing less. Do you not agree with me that CV was the dominant view of the atonement held for the first 1,000 years of church history, while PS was almost non-existent? If this is the case, then should we not focus on CV in our gospel & our preaching/teaching much more than we (read: conservative evangelicals) do?

The only reason I brought this up is because the way Iron’s final paragraph reads. Do you not see it? He sets it up like Wright has to believe either/or, not both/and. That’s my only point. I wish more proponents of PS would concede to other views & incorporate them into their teaching & their Gospel. In my opinion, a Gospel that is exclusively PS portrays the most pessimistic view of humanity possible while giving a picture of a God who is an arbitrary & cruel dictator who is pissed off and needs to take his anger out on somebody. I believe God judges, and I believe God’s wrath will be poured out on evil-doers, but there is a lot more to God than that. And an exclusively PS God is a God who looks a lot like Allah or the ancient gods, but not the God of Jesus Christ.

As for Grudem, once again you are wrong. No where does Grudem deny Christus Victor. The reason you may have not seen it in His Sys. Theo. is because he puts it under the category of Redemption (old book, 579-580). There Grudem affirms the meaning of Christus Victor while not using the terms.

As for Schreiner, “Christ’s work on the cross not only broke the power of sin but also spelled the defeat of evil and demonic powers.” (New Testament Theology, 369. And a whole section is devoted to this topic in the following pages)

Once again, no true holder to penal substitution denies Christus Victor as an aspect. You are only going to cause problems in the Christian community when you read into these guys what you want them to believe instead of what they have clearly stated.

and I couldn’t help but notice that you “missed” Seyoon Kim’s article that I quoted above when you gave your list of supposed Christus Victor deniers. His article is a good representative of those who hold to penal substitution.

thus, the problem here is not with Iron, Schreiner, myself, or any other holders to penal substitution. The problem is that you want us to believe what you want us to believe. Meaning, you want us to hold to a either/or distinction, thus no matter what we say, in your mind, we will deny Christus Victor. Yet the reality remains, we don’t hold to a either/or! We hold to both/and!(I refer you to Kim’s article if you want to argue about this point.)