New Book on the Atonement

This promises to be a blockbuster book on the Atonement. You can read Piper’s intro and chapter 1. The blurbs are incredibly glowing. And, WTS bookstore is offering %40 off until Nov 2 on this book. As Gary Johnson has now noted in the comments, this is the book that N.T. Wright loves to hate.

About these ads

10 Comments

  1. October 26, 2007 at 11:41 am

    Hey Lane,

    This book, as you will no doubt be aware of, has been out in the UK for several months. Glad that at long last US readers will be able to get hold of it.

  2. GLW Johnson said,

    October 26, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    As Martin can confirm, NT Wright took exception not only to the theme of the book and the authors, but also to the people who endorsed the book!

  3. October 26, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    That’s right. His review (?) is well worth reading, you can also read the response from the authors on the PFOT website.

  4. Al said,

    October 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    From what I gather — and I have corresponded with one of the authors of the book on the subject — the authors of the book are far from anti-Wright and NPP. They are frustrated by his criticisms of the book and his support of Steve Chalke, but this frustration is largely due to the fact that they are being hit by what they perceive as friendly fire. They do NOT perceive themselves as being opposed to NTW and the NPP and are annoyed that some people view it that way. In fact, the book is purposefully written in a way that shows that penal substitution readings follow from both NPP and more traditionally Reformed readings of Paul (Wright is quoted favourably a number of times in the book, as a supporter of the doctrine that they are trying to defend). The people that I know at Oak Hill are generally very enthusiastic about Wright’s work, more so than most Reformed evangelicals over here. For instance, David Field, who is postgrad course leader there, is a huge Wright fan (and also happens to like FV people a lot, as you should be able to tell from his blog).

    Thankfully, many Reformed evangelicals in the UK have no interest in importing the silly theological debates that plague American Reformed circles. Despite my differences with the Oak Hill students and lecturers that I know on some issues, I am impressed by their serious scholarship and their openness to consider positions such as those within the FV and NPP.

  5. greenbaggins said,

    October 26, 2007 at 1:46 pm

    Al, your assessment jives with what I have just read from the website about the book. I’m not sure that the authors support the NPP. But they are not opposed to it, unless and insofar as the NPP denies substitutionary atonement (which I’m not sure it does).

  6. October 26, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    He was pretty full on when he chided them for being sub-biblical in their views don’t you think? What was he picking up on that didn’t fit with his theology of the atonement?

  7. greenbaggins said,

    October 26, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    From the article (which many people are not quite sure of, as to its meaning, I am finding out), it seems that Wright is criticizing the authors of the book for not having atonement set within the Israel story (which omission the authors have denied), not exegeting the atonement within the parameters of the NPP (which the authors have labelled unproductive, as they have actually attempted to prove that the atonement fits with both new and old perspectives), misinterpreting Romans and Galatians (along the lines of the previous critiques), and misinterpreting his friend’s book. However, and this is the question I would have for Wright: Chalke’s statement does not say that it was God’s wrath against sin which the atonement propitiated. That is a sine qua non of the atonement. I am not sure that Wright has successfully defended Chalke here.

  8. GLW Johnson said,

    October 27, 2007 at 6:24 am

    Alastair
    Having read your highly favorable views on NT Wright ,I am guessing when you accuse us on this side of the pond of wasting our time on “silly theological debates” you are in fact referring to our taking the doctrines like justification a bit more serious than you do. Perhaps we could throw the doctrine of inerrancy in there as well and any other issue that NT Wright dismisses.

  9. GLW Johnson said,

    October 27, 2007 at 6:41 am

    P.S.
    We can also throw in the Bishop’s anti-American tirades cf.the response by Joseph Loconate of The Weekly Standard which is linked here-http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/octoberweb-only/143-52.o.html

  10. Daniel Kok said,

    October 30, 2007 at 12:52 am

    Re #4: We have these “silly theological debates” in Canada too.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 351 other followers

%d bloggers like this: