arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
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.'
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.'