Tom Wright and Steve chlke Atonement controversy

speakout

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2007
1,184
27
✟1,541.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Tom Wright is an icon in these forums but I want to expose his position as totally unbiblical,
Then you had better read his actual position and stop addressing other people's soundbite summaries of it, and then actually engaging in a real examination of atonement instead of just throwing around wild accusations about Satan. Which will actually require you to do some theology and some reading. (Shock, horror).


I have a problem with Durham, both the University and the Dioceses.
I presume you mean diocese.

You're link doesn't work. But if you actually want to examine Tom Wright's views you need to work from books and articles that he has written, not other people's. And not from the perspective of Steve Chalke, who is a fantastic church leader but is not a theologian.

"Steve Chalke rejects popular understandings of atonement" does not equal "Tom Wright rejects a sound understanding of atonement".

Surely this is ultra liberal,
If Tom Wright is ultra-liberal I'm a fur-seal.

and opposed to Jesus work.
We aren't saved by having a particular understanding of Atonement, or even a particular understanding about how salvation works. We are saved by frace through faith in Jesus of Nazareth.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, so far he's a better interpreter of early Christianity than anyone else I've read. And sure, he's wrong about a number of things, has his own pet ideas, is inclined to a "bloodless Christ" like ... it seems ... many theologians appear to be in England. Kill the biased claims off as what they are.

Then consider the remainder. It's still good stuff, and worth consideration. Even when some of it's wrong.

Somehow, my view doesn't sound "iconic" to me.

I'm sympathetic with Wright because his points demand consideration and reasoned, rational response instead of ad hominem attack. He's a good exegete; not a great theologian; and a horrible systematist (which he never claims to be) and Reformation historicist (which he also doesn't claim to be, but has the hubris to stick his nose into without a background). His grasp of First Century culture is immense. I love reading it.
 
Upvote 0

wayseer

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
8,226
503
Maryborough, QLD, Australia
✟11,121.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Tom Wright is an icon in these forums but I want to expose his position as totally unbiblical, I have a problem with Durham, both the University and the Dioceses.

Tom Wright is deliberately confronting - so was Jesus.

Many have a problem with Jesus. What makes you think there will not also be 'problems' with anyone else who confronts entrenched self-righteous beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Well, so far he's a better interpreter of early Christianity than anyone else I've read. And sure, he's wrong about a number of things,
Isn't everybody? At least he has the honest to say that some of what he says will be wrong.

has his own pet ideas, is inclined to a "bloodless Christ" like ... it seems ... many theologians appear to be in England. Kill the biased claims off as what they are.
I don't know what this bit means.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't know what this bit means.
It'll be a long explanation for a slogan that's inaccurate.

He tends to recoil at anything that implies something is assailable or hard about the theological position of Christianity. He's openly inclined toward a Christus Victor model of Christ's work, though perplexingly he makes comments in favor of a substitutionary model, as long as it's "not shallow". He's made the assertion in "Jesus and the Victory of God" that Jesus was not specifically engaged in enacting a substitutionary atonement when He went to the Cross. To him that came afterward. To me that's not well-sustained.

It puts up an image of wanting to "explain in more depth" anything that's hard, like the Blood of Christ and the Cross of Christ. From a debate standpoint that makes a theology so multifaceted, it's hard to attack from any one angle. But from my standpoint, holding to such complicated points ultimately makes such a view vulnerable to attacks from numerous sides.

There are points for making the view as complex as historically it should be. But it can dissipate the Atonement itself if it's made more complex.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

speakout

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2007
1,184
27
✟1,541.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Tom Wright is deliberately confronting - so was Jesus.

Many have a problem with Jesus. What makes you think there will not also be 'problems' with anyone else who confronts entrenched self-righteous beliefs.


Tom Wright is often wrong- unlike Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Mar 27, 2007
34,437
3,872
On the bus to Heaven
✟60,078.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The superstar one.

That doesn't answer my question. BTW- Your link in the OP doesn't work and I have no idea what "Steve chlke atonement controversy" means. Can you explain?
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So ... your problem is that Wright agrees with penal substitutionary atonement, but accepts Chalke's view and denies that penal substitution is some form of "violence perpetrated by God toward humankind but borne by His Son"?

This kinda drapes itself across one issue I have with Wright's view, but I'm unsure the point you're making. I believe Wright finds humankind self-perpetrating its own condemnation, and so God the Father is actively involved in rescue through His Son, to Wright's mind. What Chalke means by his view, I dunno, and according to Wright it wasn't the focus of the book. Is that accurate?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums