Chapters 1 & 2
Wright says several time things like “Something happened as a result of which the world is a different place” (loc 598). I am wondering if this is just pious nonsense, or does it actually mean anything?
“We will find that the entire setting undermines any suggestion of the angry, bullying God” (loc 678). Why is he saying this? There are no doubt some who present the cross in this fashion, but I have never heard it done. More to the point, I have not heard serious evangelical theologians present it this way. All Wright seems to be doing is reinforcing the wrong caricatures that atheists may paint of the cross.
So far I find the book disappointing. Maybe I have lived a very sheltered life, or maybe Wright has had too many bad experiences, but while the caricature of penal substitutionary atonement is presented by some, the caricature is not what is presented by sensible evangelicals, and not one I have heard. So why is he setting up this straw man? This is the sort of thing that bad atheists do. He seems to have a problem with punishment for sin . Given that in Isaiah 53:5 where it says “the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him”, Wright at least has to present a proper case for dismissing the punishment aspect, if indeed that is what his end result will be. He has said on several occasions that the cross does deal with sin, and no doubt will explain that in later chapters. I wonder what he will say.
As I say, so far, so disappointing, but normally Wright is very good, so I still look forward to the rest of the book, and wonder where it will end up.
No comments:
Post a Comment