Day of Reconciliation

[DaveXR650]

The author describes "atonement" in the Day of Atonement as kippur , a purification rather than substitution.

One thing I am a little puzzled by is the concept that penal substitution is by necessity opposed to the purification and washing motifs. Does the author list any references for this? I have not found any in my own reading but I could just have overlooked them. The idea of purification and washing is common in Calvinist era hymns and the theme is way more predominate in Owen's writings on Hebrews than penal substitution, at least what I have read.

I have never seen one who believes PSA hate the lines "and sinners plunged beneath that flood loose all their guilty stains" or "there may I though vile as he wash all my sins away". I think we should clarify whether there is really any opposition to kipper being described as purification vs just the idea that what you see with the Levitical sacrifices does indeed also illustrate a substitution taking place because it is clearly said that the need for purification stems from sin and that is what must be cleansed, washed away or removed before one can approach a holy God. I do see where kipper can have more meanings than purification but I certainly don't nor do I know of anyone who believes PSA opposing the use of "purification" tied with kipper, rather what is opposed is that something in kipper nullifies PSA.

 

[JonC]

One thing I am a little puzzled by is the concept that penal substitution is by necessity opposed to the purification and washing motifs.

PSA is opposed to the "atonement" as presented in Leviticus to describe the Day of Atonement, but not necessarily to how PSA theorists redefine atonement.

Part of the readon is Hebrews 9. Christ is presented as dying and then entering into the Most Holy Place through His own blood (which, in Leviticus, would be atonement made by the high priest to atonement for the tent of meeting and the altar beside atoning for the sins of the people). Christ "purified" Himself (flesh and blood will not enter the kingdom of God) to enter that Most Holy Place not made with hands. There Christ as our High Priest makes atonement for our sins. This is Christ Himself as the Propitiation or Atonement for our sins, to be received by faith.

The reason PSA contradicts biblical atonement is the theory views God as taking our sins, putting them on Christ, and Christ experiencing Gid's pu ishment for our sins instead of us. There would be no sins to be cleansed.

In Leviticus "atonement" is cleansing rather than a substitution. The priest makes atonement for the tent of meeting, then for the altar, and lastly for the sins of the people.

PSA theorists deny this by "double speek", by redefining "atonement" to mimic the pagan sacrifices meant to appease the anger of their gods.

What the atonement changes os not God but man by cleansing us ftom sin (God removes our old heart and spirit, gives us a new heart and spirit, we put to death our old self, we die to the flesh, ate made new creations, are conformed into Christ's image.


PSA is a secular addition. It is neo Greco-Roman philosophy developed in the 16th century Renaissance huminism movement (the movement that sought to revitalize Greco-Roman philosophy, art, literature, and architecture).


The problem is twofold. First, it is an addition to the biblical text that focuses on this secular philosophy as primary. But second and more importantly, it replaces biblical atonement.


You have demonstrated this. The secular philosophy is "every crime must be punished; punishment satisfies the demands of the law; the role of the judge is to avenge the law".

You use that failed secular philosophy almost verbatim (all sins must be punished; punishment satisfies divine justice; God as Judge avenges divine justice).

You simply do what Calvin did - you take this secular neo Greco-Roman philosophy and replace the law with divine justice and crimes with sins.


The reason that Christ's death was not God punishing Jesus instead of us is our dins remain on us which necessitates man being "cleansed" in Christ.

If the biblical text is correct then PSA is obsolete. If God punished none of our sins on Christ we would still be saved and the requirements of the law would still be met because we are cleansed of our sins, made new creations in Christ, conformed to His image.

What is not satisfied is that failed neoGreco-Roman philosophy (every crime must be punished, punishment satisfies the law). But who cares? That philosophy was wrong and is not in the Bible. God saved us by His righteousness manifested apart from the law (as the law could not save us).

 

[JonC]

So as far as "atonement" goes, we can say that substitution is foreign to biblical atonement. Instead atonement is active in purifying or cleansing. This is what God has declared to be the purpose of atonement.

But there is another component in the ritual. There is another animal which is not sacrificed but instead carries away the "decontamination" of sin. This is the "scapegoat" ("totegoat", goat offered to Azazel).

What the atonement does is cleanse from impurity, cleans from unrighteousness.

But there is another category in the OT sacrifice system. Atonement is made for the sins of the people tp cleans them. There remains the sins themselves. Impurity is cleansed, sins are forgiven. They are acts which have been committed. They cannot be removed but are carried away. This is the symbolism of the scapegoat.

Again, this os not substitution, the animal is not killed or sacrificed. No blood is shed here. Sins are forgiven on the basis that the person has been cleansed, but dins themselves are symbolically carried away, remembered no more.

 

[JonC]

The problem with adding PSA to the equation is the atonement as presented in the biblical text is complete. There is nothing more to be done, nothing that the theory can contribute.

PSA is designed only to address the problem PSA has created - how does the biblical atonement satisfy this neoGreco-Roman philosophy? Obviously the biblical text does not satisfy what that philosophy demands as the philosophy itself is unbiblical. The theory asked the wrong questions because it assumes a false reality.

 

[DaveXR650]

The reason PSA contradicts biblical atonement is the theory views God as taking our sins, putting them on Christ, and Christ experiencing Gid's pu ishment for our sins instead of us. There would be no sins to be cleansed.

I am beginning to see how you put the logical steps together to arrive at this. If you can read into the Levitical models of atonement we have recorded as cleansing and purification only and in a vague, even antiseptic way, and ignore references to actual sin being involved, actual committed sins, as being removed and cleansed, and then also ignore all connection of God's reaction to our sin as "wrath" and all references of this as being possible to be propitiated or atoned for, then all references of justice and "the just for the unjust" you are on your way.

If you can add to that a reworking of those obvious passages in Isaiah where "someone" is bruised for our transgressions (maybe make it someone else's transgressions), and overlook the fact that it is referenced in the New Testament as meaning Jesus then you are well on your way. The only other thing you might want to do is eliminate those passages referring to the threatening of the Law and the fact that a law breaker is "guilty" and there is no remedy. And I almost forgot, you have to eliminate all references to the cross and the manner of Christ's death as being planned and participated in by the whole Trinity. With that, you should be on your way. To what, I don't know. Maybe Orthodox Christianity, or is that unfair to them. Certainly not Mennonite theology, PSA is right in their current statement of faith. Maybe just dangerous ground that hopefully the Spirit will pull you back from eventually.

 

[JonC]

I am beginning to see how you put the logical steps together to arrive at this. If you can read into the Levitical models of atonement we have recorded as cleansing and purification only faith.

I am not reading purification only, but since we were discussing the atonement in the OT (the Day of Atonement) I was reading the passages dealing with the Day of Atonement.

"Atonement" is defined as "purification" by the actual passage. But this is one of two ritualistic components. The other is the "scapegoat" ("totegoat", the animal set aside for Azazel).

The problem with your theory is it not supported by the biblical text (Scripture does not differentiate in type making atonement for the tent of meeting, for the altar, and for the sins of the people.... all are the same making of atonement).

You have created a created a new category and have insisted this neo-atonement be the primary way to view the work of the Father redeeming us.


In your opinion why did God omit substitution in the biblical text but was very specific that "making atonement" is "cleansing"?

...ignore all connection of God's reaction to our sin as "wrath" and all references of this as being possible to be propitiated or atoned for, then all references of justice and "the just for the unjust" you are on your way.

I certainly have not ignored God's "reaction" (I would say judgment) towards the wicked. The wicked "store up wrath for themselves for the day of wrath." God's wrath will be expressed on all wickedness.

In fact, this is what biblical atonement takes care of by satisfying the demands of the law, yet as God's righteousness manifested apart from the law.

On the "day of wrath" God will punish the wicked. All who have not been "cleansed from all unrighteousness", who have not "died to the flesh", who have not been made new creations" will absolutely be cast out.

But God is just. He will justly declare the new creations made in Christ's image innocent of sin. And He will condemn the wicked.


God being "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ" is why God passed over OT sins until the Promise has come (read the passage as you are misapplying that verse).

God justifiies the one who has faith in Christ. We are made into Christ's image, given a new heart and spirit. Those of us who are Christians, who believe and have not been carried away from the faith once delivered by philosophy, will be righteous. We will be glorified. That is our destiny, joint heirs with Christ.

But God is also just. He will not punish the righteous but He will also in no way clear the guilty.


The crux of your argument is neoGreco-Roman philosophy. You cannot acceot a manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the law even if it fulfills the requirements of the law.

Why? Because you have adopted the secular philosophy ("all crimes must be punished, punishment satisfies the demands of the law") by "Christianizing" it (all sins must be punished, punishment satisfies the demands of divine justice).


But the Atonement is simply not the work of the Father punishing Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us. Instead the Atonement is the work of Christ cleansing us, the work of God destroying who we were to recreate us in the image of Christ.

If you can add to that a reworking of those obvious passages in Isaiah where "someone" is bruised for our transgressions

Why would I even consider such? Christ was bruised for our transgressions, He bore our sins bodily, He shared our infirmity, He was made sin for us, He shared our humanity, He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, He was made flesh, and He died in the flesh as flesh will not enter the kingdom of God.

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

I like discusding doctrines with people who hold different views (whether Mormon, JW, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian,... whatever). It gives me a chance to proclaimed God's Word.

BUT one criteria is the standard has to be the biblical text. I do not care what John Owen, Ellen White, John Calvin, Joyce Myers, Kenneth Copeland, Joseph Smith, John Wesley,... whoever... taught that the Bible really taught. I am not of a cult mentality. I like to keep things simple rather than trying to decide which men (or women) to follow.


I have provided you with exactly what God has said ("what is written", "the faith once delivered", the biblical text).

You insist that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us, that Jesus was our penal substitute taking God's wratg upon Himself so we would escape that wrath.

Problem is what you ultimately deny is the power of God to make a man into a new creation. You cannot accept that salvation is a work of Christ rather than the Father punishing Him.


Like the Pharisees, John Calvin also could not grasp God's righteouness apart from the law. I think this is by God's design. You accept that God created, but reject that God could possibly make us new creations, actually make us righteous.


What has been shown here is I have a faith grounded in the biblical text, but you have chosen to ground your faith in a 16th century secular philosophy and in men. You cannot provide even one passage stating your belief (you have to add "what it really means" as a footnote).