http://www.gregboyd.org/uncategorized/a-christus-victor-and-penal-substitution-view-of-the-atonement/):

It turned out that Adam, who had defended the view that Jesus’ work on the cross appeased the Father’s wrath, agreed with me that the Father wasn’t wrathful toward Jesus. It’s just that God’s wrath against sin was expressed by him delivering Christ up to the Powers in our place. Sin was judged and Christ was our substitute — hence, Penal Substitution. Adam informed me that this is basically the view of Karl Barth, expressed in his Church Dogmatics (which I will now certainly have to look into). Well, I replied, if that’s what you mean by the Penal Substitution view of the atonement, consider me a card carrying member!

And notice, this version of Penal Substitution is not only compatible with the Christus Victor view of the atonement (the view that the main thing Jesus did on Calvary was defeat the devil and free us from his oppression): it actually presupposes it. So, without retracting any of my criticism of the view that God needs to vent his wrath against Jesus in order to forgive us, maybe I can now espouse a Christus Victor Penal Substitution view of the atonement.

I'm not sure I follow his recent post on Obama, though. How can Greg, by his view, be happy that a professing Christian will take an oath to be the commander-in-chief of the American military unless Obama will command that military to cease all military action in the world? Can Obama's role as director of military hostilities be considered legitimate on Greg's view? Would Greg's view require Obama to do the least QUANTITY of harm to humans regardless of whether such a policy might result in greater harm to Americans, in particular? Or would America's role in the world possibly justify the perpetrating of greater harm, in the short run, to other nations to protect us so we can cause greater goods over the long run? And, if so, wouldn't that simply be consequentialism applied to the use of force?

I'm not sure I understand just what Greg believes on what he calls "violence." Does any one know whether he distinguishes between "violence" and "force" in some sense that I'm not understanding? It seems to me that some of his statements cover ALL physically forceful actions.