Last week I posted a troubling article by N. T. Wright, who, after making many true and edifying points, went on to defend Steve Chalke as affirming a "form" of penal substitutionary atonement and to castigate and mock the authors and supporters of a new book defending penal substitutionary atonement. It made me wonder to what degree Wright truly understands the traditional doctrine.
I'm thankful, therefore, to see these Wright quotes provided by Jim Hamilton which clearly affirm the doctrine. And more relevant quotes can be found in this paper.
