Buggman: Yep. You might think of it in terms of a fine: Once the fine is paid, you couldn't (in theory at least) be tried again on the same charge.
FK: I can see saying that this atonement is comparatively weak because it only covers a particular sin one time (as opposed to the work of Christ), but for that one time was it equally effectual as a propitiation in your view?
Buggman: It's a bit more complicated than that, but the simple answer is yes.
OK, it looks like these two answers match. It looks like you are comparing sin to committing some crime for which a ticket is issued. Once the fine is paid, the matter is over. That matches what I understand propitiation to involve. One is made favorable in God's eyes in terms of being made fit for Heaven, i.e. that particular sin will not be counted against you.
However, later in the post you discuss the difference between covering a sin and removing it. (This seems relevant to a discussion about expiate and propitiate.) So, I'm confused if I'm understanding you to say that OT atoning is like paying a fine once and for all (propitiate), but is insufficient for having the offense removed (also propitiate).
FK: What exactly is the difference between atoning for sin (or A sin) and removing it?
Atonement is a legal condition; removal of sin is the spiritual condition that men long for. If a man had been doing some work outside and had to get to a meeting in a hurry, he might quickly wash his face and hands, change his clothes, and put on some deodorant to make himself presentable (cover himself), but he would long for the shower that he will be able to take later to truly remove the dirt and sweat.
I think I'm with you that the removal of sin is the spiritual condition that men long for, but I don't understand that as opposed to the legal condition of atonement. Don't we say that justification is a legal condition? I don't think that justification would match your atonement analogy above.
FK: We can say that Christ's atonement was different in its scope, but was it different from animal sacrifice atonement in the micro sense, for a particular sin (or small group of sins)?
The major difference is this: God's Law requires that a kinsman is ultimately needed to redeem a person. The blood of lambs, goats, and bulls may atone for sin, and the Azazel even provides for the sin to be carried off on a yearly basis--but only a kinsman can buy back a man sold into slavery and make him free again; only a kinsman can buy back his land and restore to him what was lost. And therefore, only our Kinsman-Redeemer could do more than cover our sins or temporarily carry them off and truly buy us back by His own blood.
This appears to add a new, third element to the discussion. If the subject is being made fit for Heaven then it looks like you are saying here that neither OT atonement nor OT removal of sin was sufficient. We need Christ. I'm good with that, but I'm not sure how it fits in with everything else we've been discussing to this point. For example, here you appear to say that sin removal is not enough, but earlier you say that removal of sin is the spiritual condition men long for. The quick wash was the temporary (atonement) and the full shower was the permanent (removal of sin). I thought you were saying that Christ is like the full shower.
There may be confusion if we are assigning different meanings or levels of significance to terms like "atonement", "removal of sin", "propitiate", "once and for all", etc. I don't know. :)
Interesting discussion. Let me introduce a different angle.
In the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere Jesus challenged the Pharisees on their concern for merely “deed” sins. He pointed out that sin encompasses the whole man and the pollution included thoughts, words, and deeds.
So if the OT sacrifices covered deed sins did they also cover thought and word sins? Were thought sins not carried out in word or deeds covered?
And perhaps Buggman is making the distinction that the sacrifices removed the guilt but did nothing for the actual pollution.
And if that is the case is Buggman suggesting that the kinsman-redeemer not only covers the guilt but removes the pollution?