Cleansing theory of atonement?

Status
Not open for further replies.

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I recently came across this:
It ia followed up by this: https://drmsh.com/dr-johnson-responds-questions-atonement-discussion/
It seems to be the reverse of Wright's, as well as many other's, view of the atonement as removing the exile or curse from Israel to now reach Gentiles.
He has some interesting ideas that he tries to connect back to Leviticus of how Gentiles are brought into the people of God, yet he seems to think the idea of Christ's death was one to make pure and not atonement in the traditional sense thus think it obviates the need for substitution.
Thoughts?
P.S. the last questions at the end probably betray some of his stance as anti -Reformational, especially his view of 'faith' which is bogus, yet I am curious to his view of the mechanics of how Gentiles are brought 'near.'
 

py3ak

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
The three paragraphs of the summary seem relatively straightforward. I suppose the element to potentially tweak a little bit is that everyone, Jew or Gentile, is in need of cleansing by Christ.
 

py3ak

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
In my limited exposure, I've found Pannenberg to be wonderful in terms of historical discussion, and rather horrifying in terms of his own opinions. Given his context, I think he can certainly be a useful witness, but not a safe source.

The purifying rituals of the Jewish law pointed to a need for cleansing. But the real status of being clean was conferred in Christ. That meant that, on the one hand, believing Jews certainly were clean, but independently of the rituals--and therefore Gentiles could be clean also. The rituals found fulfillment in Christ, and that in principle included a universal accessibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top