Historically, substitution has been a minority position regarding atonement. I believe it is historically and theologically shortsighted to say that anything other than substitutionary atonement is heresy. The church as a whole has never held that view until perhaps recently among certain Calvinists. Oddly enough Wright considers himself squarely within the Reformed tradition himself.

He is a brilliant theologian, by the way. ;)

There seems to be quite a controversy about imputed righteousness these days. Is that an essential part of the substitutionary death of Christ?
Many Calvinists in the SBC and out of it say that N.T. Wright’s view is heresy. Paul L’s blog in January said that Bishop Wright is merely misunderstood, that he is an incredible theologian.

Is it possible to be completely unorthodox on substitution while completely orthodox on the resurrection?

I answered you openly, honestly, and transparently, to the best of my ability. Does this mean you think if you ask the question again I will answer dishonestly or obtusely, that you just did not bother to read my answer, or what? Besides, I thought discussing this with me was futile. And when will you answer my questions?

Thank you. It is of consequence. I like to think I am never affected by what others think. then I remember I am human.

I wish you were grading my papers.

It may be of no consequence to you, but I think your comment is a “Ten Ring” of comments on this post. You have most definitly hit the target. The guys on the Emmaus Road would never be the same again. They surely would never deny any of the Deity of Christ as revealed in Scripture. Surely none of us that have been thusly “warmed in our hearts” by the very presence of the Holy Spirit could ever deny the essentials of the gospel message once we are brought to an understanding of its truth.

cb

Jeff,
I think I am being misunderstood. I do not think anyone has to “understand” much. Affirmation of these doctrines would be “common sense” to those who have heard the gospel, even without understanding how they could be- such as the Lord being a man and dying, or the Lord indwelling men by His own Spirit, or the Lord being born without the stain of Adam, etc. It is clear, just as Jesus walked through the Scriptures testifying to himself as he walked to Emmaus with the two, and as Peter expounded the text of the OT declaring that this man is that man- both Lord and Christ! The one who David called Lord, the one who can forgive sins, the one who was heralded from the beginning as the Son of the Most High. For it was the exposition of the OT texts as to Jesus’ identity that pierced the men to the heart.

Therefore, it would be wrong, I think, to argue that since there is no mention of certain things that they weren’t mentioned. I believe the text itself rightly places the emphasis on the things we need to know, but given the genre of Acts, I would say that all narratives should not be considered prescriptive in themselves, given the epistles and gospels that round out the revelation.

Denial is a different ballgame than understanding.

The only thing I knew intimately upon my conversion was the depth of my own sin.

I believe you are right. If a person states he or she has had an experience of grace in ignorance of the wholeness of the gospel he or she may have had a valid experience of grace. Yet, if afterwards, in learning the wholeness of the gospel from Scripture and proper theological training, one can still deny the essentials of the Deity of Christ it is highly probable that one’s “experience” of grace was not a true experience of being sealed by the Holy Spirit as one of God’s children. The Spirit within us would not let us deny the essentials of the gospel once revealed to us by His presence in our lives. I am talking about the very essentials of the gospel, not secondary issues of faith.

cb

Congrats. You and Colin are the only two to ever be 100 on my thread.