A Discussion about Yom Kippur with Mike Collier

Welcome back to Coffee with a Calvinist. This program is dedicated to helping you better understand the word of God and the doctrines of grace. The Bible tells us, do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Get your Bible and coffee ready and prepare to study along. Here's your host with today's lesson, Pastor Keith Foskey.

Introduction to the Guest and the Topic of Yom Kippur

And welcome back to Coffee with a Calvinist. My name is Keith Foskey and I am a Calvinist. We have a special show today. We're going to be having a discussion about Yom Kippur because today is September 28th, 2020.

And we're going to be discussing the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur with my brother and friend and fellow elder, brother Mike Collier. Now, many of you know Mike because many of you are members of Sovereign Grace Family Church, but if you do not know who he is, Mike Collier is an elder at SGFC.

He is a gifted preacher of the word. He is a fearless evangelist and he has been around the world sharing the gospel and he loves to preach in the open air. On a personal note, I've really enjoyed growing together with Mike as a brother in Christ.

We've stood together on a few occasions, open air preaching, the most memorable for me being when we stood outside the conference of the Jehovah Witnesses. And of course, when we went to the first Trump rally in 2016 and talked to some of the people at the campaign there.

We challenge one another in a deep theological conversations on a regular basis. We're currently going back and forth on the proper understanding of a particular phrase in Genesis three, looking at the original languages and having a good time doing so.

We often do things like this throughout the week as we attempt to grow in our understanding of the word together. So without any further introduction, I wanna say, Mike, thank you for joining the program today.

Good to be here.

Yep, and as I said, I'm Keith Foskey and I'm a Calvinist. And you are?

I'm Mike Collier and I'm not an Armenian.

Amen, okay. Well, we're gonna begin with a little bit more introduction. I've already talked a little bit about you, but I wanna ask a couple of questions and this is for the audience, but it's also for our church because our church members listen to this.

And even though many of them know you as elders, some of these people are new. They've never been really intimately in conversations with us because they're new folks. And a few weeks ago, I shared my testimony, how I became a Christian, how I became a Calvinist and people said they appreciated that.

So can you tell us how and when did God save you?

In the spring of 2003, I was exercising on a track and I had heard the gospel many times, grew up in church, was a God hater, thought it was all foolishness. The week prior to that, I had heard, was slipping through the radio, had heard a sermon and I had laughed when I heard what was said, but that following week, the same time, same track, turned a corner at the dip bars and it was the first time in my life that I felt that I was gonna stand before God with guilt.

And it was at that point that I just told God whatever he wanted to do with me, I was fine. I just wanted to be right with him. And that was in Apalachicola, Florida.

All right, and how soon after that did you know God was calling you to preach? Because your dad was a missionary, right?

He was a minister of evangelism, yes. He went. Bob Tebow, they went to the Philippines and he spent a lot of time over there with him.

On the mission trips.

I love your dad, just on a side note, we've gone out and handed out tracks together and I enjoy conversation with him and watching you and him work together, as you both are, for those who don't know, Mike owns a painting business, his dad works alongside of him and they painted our sanctuary this year and watching y 'all work together and cut up was a real joy.

Outside of my wife, that is my best friend.

That's, amen, that's wonderful. Well, how long did you know, how long before you knew God called you to preach?

I knew that God was calling me to do something at what level, I did not know. It was probably about six months after being saved. I said, you know, I have a desire to teach God's people God's word, but how to do that, I needed some more biblical knowledge.

So obviously reading books and studying, that's kind of how, and it was probably about two and a half years after being converted that I began to connect the dots that what I was hearing in the pulpit was not consistent with how God regenerated, called and justified.

And in speaking to those individuals, those pastors, which both of them I talked to were very gracious saying I was, they were trying to, knew that I was trying to understand, but I was told point blank, that's just not what we teach here.

Okay.

Do you remember your first sermon?

Yes, it was John one.

Okay.

John one, one.

Awesome.

Yeah.

Now you came to FGFC, what year?

Do you remember?

I think it was 14.

2014.

Okay, and what brought you here?

What brought me here was I was, I did a church plant with five other families. Then through the course of some unfortunate situations was no, unable to serve in good faith. No good conscience anymore.

And I left and just said, Lord, wherever you would have me go, just kind of direct me in some family integrated direction. And I Googled several times, family integrated could not find it. The last time I Googled, it came here and it was on a Wednesday.

So I listened to, it was a Wednesday morning. I listened to a message you had preached that Wednesday afternoon. And I showed up here that Wednesday night and y 'all were teaching evangelism training.

Yep.

And I had no idea that six other men that I was shepherding at the other church ended up being here.

Yeah.

They said, hey, what are you going to do tonight? And I said, well, I'm going over here. No intent of thinking they were going to show up.

And they showed up.

Everybody did.

Yeah, I remember that night y 'all came in. It was like a train coming in and you and I sat and talked for another hour or two after it was over.

Yep, yep.

The Meaning of Atonement in the Old Testament and the Sufficiency of Penal Substitution

Well, I know you love theology. And as I said, today was going to be a discussion about theology and about particularly Yom Kippur. It just so happens that this program will air on September 28th, which this year, 2020 is Yom Kippur.

And I want to talk a little bit, I know you and I love to have deep theological conversations. I want to ask you a few questions, get your thoughts and maybe stir the mind of our listeners in regard to the subject of the atonement.

For those who don't know, the word Yom Kippur means the day of atonement. And how does the Bible define atonement? What's your words?

How would you?

In the Old Testament, it had two aspects. One was expiation and the other propitiation. And as we get into the New Testament, sometimes that's lost in some translation. They just use the word expiation and propitiation, but it's both.

One is the taking away, which would be the scapegoat in the day of atonement. Once taken away, actually let off and take the sin away. The other one was actually slaughtered, blood sprinkled over the horns of the altar, and that was to placate God's wrath or to set it aside.

I believe at the time that the people that were doing that believed that that actually satisfied God's wrath. I think that in their mind, they failed to see the type and shadow of something greater that would come.

So they were doing it under the Mosaic legislation. It was not a day of atonement. Atoning for sin did not codified or became part of any type of legislation to the Mosaic covenant. Then we see it actually ratified and carried out in its full.

Amen.

Do you think that the concept of penal substitution, which you've already said, placating or satisfying God's wrath, do you think the concept of penal substitution is an essential part of understanding the atonement?

And I'll add this more specifically. In your opinion, do you think a person can be a genuine Christian and deny penal substitutionary atonement?

There'll be two answers to this. One, I think someone can come to faith and not understand completely the full orb of penal substitution. But after being taught correctly, if they reject that, I could say that person can't be saved because they have to understand that they need a substitute.

They need someone to pay that penalty. And that person that paid that penalty also has to be the one that can be their righteousness. So if they deny an actual need for a substitute, well, they're denying that Jesus died in someone's place.

Now, can someone come to faith and not understand that fully? Well, certainly.

Yeah, well, what made me think of that particular question, you may not have seen this. Did you see the monster God debate with Brian Zahn and Michael Brown? You know who Michael Brown is. Brian Zahn is a pastor.

I think he's more charismatic, but they did a debate, and he said he denies penal substitution completely and says that it's a false doctrine. That it paints God into a moral monster. And that's why the debate was called the monster God debate.

And I have a hard time saying that he's a brother. I mean, personally, when I heard him say, when I heard him take particular passages of scripture, Isaiah 53 and things like that, and ultimately say that's not about penal substitution.

That's not about satisfying God's wrath. And Michael Brown won that debate.

Probably tore him to pieces.

Well, you don't go to Hebrew with Michael Brown. Michael Brown is, I don't know if you know Jewish. And his Hebrew is, you know, even though I would disagree with him on a lot of things, that's not what you argue with him on.

And so, yeah, I would say I would have a hard time receiving him, especially as a pastor.

Well, sure. And that goes back to, I don't know if any of your listeners know who Charles Finney was, but Charles Finney was a charismatic preacher of the great second great awakening, 19th century. But he denied penal substitution.

He thought it was actually an example of how we should live as righteousness. Now, he didn't deny the fact that Jesus died and that Jesus died for sin, but he didn't die for somebody. He died for something.

And if you read Charles Finney's writings, it's very clear. I think in his systematic theology, you can go, it might be in the section of the atonement or a type of atonement, and it winds up being just exemplary.

It's not satisfaction. And Charles Finney winds up being a heretic. I mean, he created the anxious bench and the aisle walking and all of that. He said that men had the ability to do the moral good that God required, which would lead to the fact that Jesus didn't have to die because men can be morally correct and that they become Pelagian.

Well, I was gonna say that.

No, no, no. I'm glad you went there because it is Pelagian. And what's funny is if I remember correctly, and I'm not trying to impugn Billy Graham, but from what I understand, Billy Graham saw Finney as a good example.

And you see this in his sort of the crusade mentality.

To see the response, people get discouraged because they don't see God's work. So we wanna see what God has done. So we'll make an opportunity for people to say, did you feel anything? That was probably God, so come forward.

Although I would disagree with that. That's one thing about being a Calvinist and being an open-air preacher is I'm not selling a product.

Amen.

And if someone doesn't make a response other than vileness, because most people hear the preaching of God's word and it should be an offense to them. Now, we shouldn't be offensive, but the message is offensive.

So, but if you're out there doing a crusade and you're wanting thousands of people to come forward, well, you've gotta do something to create that desire to come forward when it should be the Holy Spirit that should be creating the desire for faith and repentance.

Amen.

Particular Redemption and the Witness of John, Isaiah, and Hebrews

Now, you mentioned you're a Calvinist. And you're not an Armenian. Calvinism often gets a black eye from non-Calvinists for the doctrine of limited atonement. I firmly believe in limited atonement. I know you do too.

And maybe we would prefer to call it particular redemption, but we don't, I don't have an issue with limited atonement as long as I understand. I'm defining my own terms and, but if you were talking to someone who was, maybe we have a listener who's a non-Calvinist or maybe you're having a conversation with somebody who's not yet understanding, where would you take them to show them the particular nature of the atoning work of Christ?

Let me back up for just a second. I would even say the Armenian believes in limited atonement. It's limited. It's limited either God's choice or man's choice. So when they say we deny the limited atonement, well, when they explain their meaning, well, then the atonement's only limited by them based on man choosing.

We're basing it on scripture, which says, Jesus says, I lay down my life for the sheep and my sheep know my voice and they come to me. And all that God's given to me will come to me and I will in any wise lose, I won't lose any of them.

So those were, that would be the first passage I would go to. And in the Old Testament, I would go back to, certainly Isaiah 53, where he says he dies for the sin of his people. Well, he says he suffered for our sins.

Well, the context of who that is is the covenant people. And the nature of the love for which he dies in the Upper Room Discourse, I think it's John 15, 13, he says, no greater love than this, than a man lay down his life for his friends.

So there's a less love and a greater love. You know, we get the less love by deduction. It's not there. It's a good inferent implication. We can hear it's there because he says it's a greater love because I'm laying down my life for you.

So that's where I would go. I could stay right in the book of John and never leave there.

I would have thought, and again, we didn't talk about this beforehand,.

Where you were gonna go.

I would have thought because of how much you enjoy Hebrews, I would have thought you'd went to Hebrews.

We will go to Hebrews.

But that's your, for those who don't, again, people who don't know you as well as I do, that's a book that you've spent a lot of time in, a lot of studying in. And I tend to see the great high priest work of Christ in that book.

Yeah.

And so if it were me, I would probably, like you said, start with my sheep. Hear my voice, they know me.

That's very simple.

Yeah, and what did Jesus say? He said, you don't believe because you're not my sheep.

He didn't say you're not my sheep because you won't believe.

That's right.

He says, you're not my sheep. And then he goes on and say in that very same passage, in that discourse, he says, and if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sin.

Hmm.

That's a sobering statement.

Yeah, oh, absolutely. Well, the Jews today, all around the world, again, we're recording this early, so it's actually not September 28th. I don't want anybody to think I'm a liar. Today is not September 28th, but we're recording for September 28th.

And on this day, when people are listening to this, the Jews around the world are gonna be celebrating the annual day of atonement. But we know they haven't been able to perform their sacrifices for 2000 years.

Since the fall of Jerusalem in 8070. How significant, in your mind, is their lack of ability to perform sacrifices? Or let me say it a different way. How significant do you think is the fall of Jerusalem in regard to the first coming of Christ and his atonement?

The destruction of 8070 was God closing the door on Judaism.

Okay.

Judaism, it's over.

Yeah.

It's a, not to be offensive to any Jewish friend, neighbor, whatever, but it's an irrelevant religion. Because the temple is not there. The priesthood, those were essential points for Judaism to operate.

You had to have the temple, you had to have the Ark of the Covenant, and you had to have the priesthood to do that. None of those three are there.

Yeah.

Now.

And you see that God taking that away as his act of judgment, but also inaugurating the new, right?

Sure. Well, when Jesus, his death, burial, and resurrection, when he resurrected and was ascended, God was gracious, depending on your timeline, another 37, 40 years, however you want to look at it.

Yeah, wherever Jesus died.

Yes.

Somewhere around the year 30.

Sure, till 70 AD, God was gracious. He could have crushed it right then, but he didn't. But what he did, he was gracious to those, making, providing opportunities for Peter, James, John, Paul, to preach the gospel in the temple, saying, hey, this pointed to the man that was crucified just outside that Damascus gate.

Amen.

And where he was buried just outside the gate. Now he has arisen. This place is no longer a place of worship for that. Now it's a place of idolatry and damnation because the true temple has come. Now, God let the priesthood, and under his decree, the priesthood and the temple and those in Judaism who willfully turned away from the King of kings and the Lord of lords, heaped up judgment.

And Jesus even said that, that there's coming a day.

Yeah.

The End of the Old Covenant System and the Problem with Rebuilding the Temple

Okay, so this next question may seem a little redundant based on what you just said, but I think this could be in the mind of a lot. A lot of our listeners, and I know even our church members, come from a background which we would know as dispensational.

Some people don't know that language because they've never been taught the language. But dispensationalism argues that the church is a parentheses in the plan of God. Israel was the plan for the history, and it's also the plan for the future.

And we're in the parentheses, which is now the church age, and they believe that's gonna end with the rapture. So you would agree?

Yeah, that's the, in a nutshell, that's dispensational eschatology.

Yeah, yeah, and the reason why I'm bringing it up is they believe there's going to be a rebuilt temple prior to the return of Christ because that's necessary for the reestablishment of the Jewish system.

What you're saying is you don't think that that's.

No, let's just give the benefit of the doubt. Let's say they put a structure on the Temple Mount. It'll never be the temple, true temple's gone. Now they can set up a building, they can slaughter animals on it, and they can worship it, but all of it is is damnable heresy for those that look to that.

God, in order to bring, and I do believe based on Romans, that God will bring large numbers of Jewish people, Israelites, to himself towards the end of the age. I believe that based on, I think it's Romans 11.

But God doesn't need a rebuilt temple to do that. He doesn't need temple sacrifice to come about to do that. He's got the power of the Holy Spirit to do that. So even if they did, let's just say they did to put something on that mount.

I don't believe that they will, that's my opinion. But if they did, it'll never be the true temple, it'll never serve its purpose of what it served before Christ came.

Would you say that if they were to reestablish what they would call a temple, like you said, it's a structure, and they were doing sacrifices, would that be in a sense a blasphemy?

Oh yeah, certainly.

Because they're basically trying to go back to the old system.

Sure, and Hebrew says that. It says if you turn away from that once for all sacrifice, and you turn back to that, in Hebrews 10, you go back to that. The only thing that awaits for you is the fiery indignation of a wrathful God that will consume his average, because there's no more sacrifice.

That sacrifice has come.

Amen, amen. This is such a big deal, because there's so many, like I said, even in our church, but not so much here, but I know if I go to other churches, and I'm talking eschatology, if I'm talking about end time stuff, it's so entrenched.

The dispensationalism is so entrenched. And I think that it really, the reestablishment of Israel in, what was it, 48, as a nation, I think that lit the fire of the dispensationalists, because here it is, the church age is ending, and we're getting back to this age.

And we've even seen, and I guess it's always been there, but it seems like there's been a growth in what can sometimes be referred to as Messianic Christianity, or Messianic Judaism. What are your thoughts about people who are intent on trying to go and live that Jewish life as a Christian, like wear the Jewish clothing, and maybe even celebrate the feasts, and things like that?

What are your thoughts about that?

If they wanna do that as an act of conscience, hey, we wanna do this because this is the way the heritage did that. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is when they do like they did in Galatians, where they make it those who don't do that are sinning, and they become Judaizers.

That's really what they wind up becoming.

I think that's what we see. I think we see a lot of times, and again, like you said, if somebody wants, like we at our church, every couple years, we'll have a Passover feast where we'll show how Jesus fulfilled the Passover feast.

But we know we're not having a real Passover feast. There's nothing like it.

It's a memorable feast. Yeah, but And they did it from the time that they sacrificed and put the blood over the, they did that as a remembrance of liberation.

Yeah, and so like I said, I think there is some liberty of conscience in that, but I do see, like I personally, and you can tell me your opinion, I personally don't like the phrase Messianic Jew, or I just think we're Christians, because Paul was a Messianic Jew, if you wanna be specific.

I mean, the idea that we have to divide ourselves, Galatians tells us that in Christ, there's neither Jew nor Greek.

I would agree, and what wound is, you wind up having this Zionist mentality within the church. You have the, well, the Jews, well, they have a special blessing, and they don't.

Yeah, and that's so hard, because people want, I think people get caught up in the Abrahamic covenant, the idea of covenant, and those who bless, and that becomes, like you said, I'm a Zionist or nationalistic view where America has to always agree with Israel, because if we don't, we're violating God.

Yeah, and we're not.

Yeah, and that's scary. For somebody to hear that, especially if they've listened to John Hagee or some of these other guys who would say, Israel's always right, therefore we have to always do and be on, I mean, I'm thankful for Israel from a patriotic perspective that we have an ally in the Middle East, because Israel's one of our few friends that are in that vicinity of the world, and I do think that's a blessing, but I think sometimes getting into the idea of we have to support them, because that keeps the Abrahamic covenant.

Yeah, and that's very erroneous, because if anybody's ever been there, it's a godless nation. I mean, I have been on the Temple Mount preaching outside Al-Aqsa Mosque and sharing the gospel outside the Dome of the Rock, and everybody hates you there.

You know, I mean, you got the Orthodox Jews who don't like you, you've got the Muslims who don't like you, you've got the Armenian, not as in Jacob Arminius Armenian, but the Armenian Church, Greek Orthodox there, and then the Catholic, and what you're saying is contrary to all those four major religions, because Jerusalem's set up in four quarters, and those quarters are those particular type religions, and everybody converges at the Temple Mount, because that's the place, you know?

So it's a godless nation. They're secularized, very secular.

Amen, amen. Well, brother, we're hitting our 25-minute mark, and you and I have these conversations all the time. That's why I kind of went, I've gone off script a little bit. This is what I was hoping for, and I hope that you'll come back and we'll do this again, because you and I, we could fill many hours with the conversations that we've had over the last several years.

But as we draw to a close, we've talked about the significance of the atonement. You've given a definition of the atonement. We've talked about how that pointed to Christ. But if you would take the last couple minutes, and I'm gonna give you the floor, and just imagine that you were talking to somebody who's listening who has not yet bowed the knee to Christ.

And I know, listening to a 30-minute conversation about the atonement, we're probably talking to mostly believers, but you never know. Might be somebody who thinks they're a believer, but would you share the gospel, and then we're gonna sign off whenever you're done.

In short is this, that God gave a law. Man has broke that law. Therefore, all men stand condemned before God. There's one man that was not condemned before God, and that was Christ the God-man. He came, he bore the sins of his people to appease the wrath of God, then to take away the wrath of God.

And God says, if you'll come to me, and bow your knee to me, and be willing to turn from unbelief and turn to belief, and put all of that faith and all of that trust in the perfect substitute, which is Jesus Christ, he will take all that away, and he'll do the great exchange.

He'll take him who knew no sin to be sent on your behalf, that you could have the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. In short, that's it.

Amen. Amen.

That is great, and that is exactly what I was hoping that you would be able to tell everyone. Well, Brother Mike, I wanna thank you for being with us today. I wanna thank you for being my fellow elder and my friend.

And I know our listeners are going to be encouraged by this. And I wanna thank you, the listener, for being with us today and hearing us discuss this important topic. The atonement is the foundation. It's the heart of what we believe.

And as always, I'm grateful for your time, and I hope this has been a blessing to you. Again, this has been Coffee with a Calvinist. I'm Keith Foskey, and I've been with Brother Mike Collier, and we have been your Calvinists today.

May God bless you as you go about your day.

Thank you for joining in for today's episode of Coffee with a Calvinist. Keep in mind, we have a new lesson available every weekday morning at 6 .30 a .m. on YouTube and Facebook. If you enjoyed this lesson, please take a moment to respond by hitting the like button, leaving a comment, and subscribing to the channel.

On behalf of Pastor Foskey, thank you for listening. May God bless you.