Contra Paul Vendredi Book 3

Here we are with Part 3 in our discussion of Paul Vendredi's series on the atonement.  Remember this is not a refutation of his arguments and a defence of penal substation per se.  It is a display of how holey is arguments are and how his logic is worthy of Spock who is a fictional being from a fictional planet in a fictional universe.

Book 3 will cover part 60 of Mr. Vendredi's series on the atonement which critiques claims 5 and 6 of the atonement school.

Claim 5 is as follows: “all sin is a debt we owe to God for the crime of having robbed him of his honour and because we have robbed an infinite being we owe him an infinite debt.”

According to Mr. Vendredi this claim rests on a simplistic hermeneutic which is an abuse of anthropomorphism.  The prooftext that God can be robbed is:

Malachi 3:8: ¶Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

Malachi 3:9: Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

He counter punches this woodenly anthropomorphic interpretation of God being robbed with:

Psalms 50:10: For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

Psalms 50:11: I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.

Psalms 50:12: If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.

Take that atonement school!

So why is God being robbed anthropomorphic and God owning possessions not?  Can a spirit own anything?  If God owns the cattle upon a thousand hills then what about the other hills?  And what about the fact that God commands the Israelites to tithe?  That his claim of being robbed is based on that command being neglected? 

NO. DISCUSSION.

He then tells us that this claim fails logically because even if God could be robbed the robber is a finite being and can only rob God of a finite amount!  If Mr. Vendredi's claim that men can only rob God of a finite amount is valid then why does God punish sinners for eternity? Is this injustice on the part of God? Are these verses only hyperbole? As you can guess there is no discussion of everlasting punishment.

Daniel 12:2: And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 

Matthew 18:8: Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 

Revelation of John 20:10: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Instead he breaks off into another ridiculous tangent, this time about the Greek gods. Homer used anthropomorphism to make the gods look foolish while the atonement school takes the passions of God seriously rather than just as a literary device. Mr. Vendredi could have used these precious minutes explaining the meaning behind these anthropomorphisms but he does not. He chooses to give us a lesson in mythology.

Claim 6 goes like this: “Because the sins of the fathers pass on to their children no baby is innocent rather all babies are born with a sin nature and are therefore criminals owing god the same infinite debt that their parents owe.”

Part 1 of this claim, the sins of the fathers fall on the guilt of the children, is refuted by using the same arguments he used to refute original sin.  Namely that each man is responsible for his own sin. He pits the following two verses agasint one another.

Jeremiah 32:18: Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name,

Vs.

Jeremiah 31:30: But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

When Jeremiah says that the children shall suffer for the sins of their fathers it is merely a hyperbolic way of saying everyone suffers when someone sins. 

Is the Babylonian captivity hyperbole? Is the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites, including infants, hyperbole? How about the destruction of the entire family of Achan?  Is that hyperbole? If everyone dies for his own iniquity and babies die without having committed iniquity then why do babies die? Again we get no discussion.

We do get the declaration that this doctrine leads to a heretical Christology.

Is baby Jesus depraved? This was covered in the last book.  Suffice it to say Mr. Vendredi is silent on why infants grow up to become sinners. Is it in their fallen human nature? Is it because of the examples they see? What is the origin of sin in children?  Why do innocent babies grow up to become sinners?

What deserves at least a passing comment gets nothing.

Psalm 51:5 is the prooftext used to show that babies are born with a sin nature but when the Psalmist says he was born in sins and iniquity that's really a synonym for the damaged human condition and has nothing to do with sin or guilt transference.

Psalms 51:5: Behold, I was conceived and born in a damaged condition

Mr. Vendredi does not even attempt to reconcile his interpretation, that man is merely damaged and not a sinner estranged from God, with any verse that proves otherwise. Verses that tell us man is wicked from his youth, the thoughts of his heart are evil continually, that the Pharisees are a brood of vipers. He also fails to tell us what he means by damaged.  If man is not born a sinner then how is he born damaged?  Did he inherit it from Adam? If so how does this not contradict his claim that there is no original sin? And if he did not inherit it from Adam then from whence did it come?

Mr. Vendredi's final critique of claim six is pure reductio ad absurdum.

Very simply put if babies are as depraved as rats then there is no moral argument against abortion. Calvinists see babies abstractly as depraved sinners but practically as innocent creatures. It is cognitive dissonance to espouse infant depravity and to oppose abortion.

All babies are depraved sinners.

Abortion is the destruction of babies.

Therefore abortion is the destruction of depraved sinners.

Now on the face of it that is a valid syllogism. And I submit that this, that infants are not innocent sinless creatures, might indeed be why God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanite infants. But it does not mean that the doctrine of infant sin negates any opposition to abortion. According to this syllogism the most you can get is that abortion is the destruction of sinners. There is nothing in this syllogism that necessarily leads to an approval of abortion. You can go even farther and say:

All men are sinners.

Murder is the destruction of men.

Therefore murder is the destruction of sinners.

A valid syllogism.  But it still does not prove that the doctrine of original sin means an approval of murder.

Mr. Vendredi is so caught up in formulating valid syllogisms that he tosses truth and logic right out the window. He wishes to use ridicule instead of actually engaging with the argument. Why does he conflate infant depravity with an approval of murder? It makes no sense. If Mr. Vendredi confesses that he is a sinner does that mean he approves of suicide? No Calvinist approves of abortion or murder and the doctrine of infant depravity does not lead to such an approval. Mr. Vendredi's syllogisms do not even prove his case.

Let's try a syllogism modeled after his sort of muddy logic.

All men get hungry.

Gluttony stops men from being hungry.

Therefore gluttony is the solution to hunger.

Mr. Vendredi thinks he has won the argument because of his clever syllogisms.

If an abstraction in theology leads to infanticide in reality then that theology should be jettisoned.

Claim six is an an abstraction in theology leading to infanticide in reality. 

Therefore claim six should be jettisoned.

If P then Q. 

P. 

Therefore Q. 

MODUS PONENS!!!

But he has not. He has in no way proven that infant depravity leads to infanticide. It's a shame that Mr.Vendredi stoops to this level of absurdity. Being that there are still eleven more claims to critique I doubt there is any less silliness to come.

Proceed to Book 4

Contra Paul Vendredi Book 2

Alright folks we are back with Book 2 in our argument against Paul Vendredi.  This time we will be critiquing his critique of claims 3 and 4 of the atonement school.

These critiques are found in part 59 of Mr. Vendredi's atonement series.

Claim 3 has two parts.  The first concerns infants having original sin.  “Even babies born innocent of actual sin are born guilty of original sin and are therefore spiritually dead and totally depraved and for this reason the early Christians baptised babies.”

He dismantles part one of this claim by telling us that since original since is false in the case of adults it is therefore false in the case of infants. In part 58 he disproved original sin so there is no reason for him to go over this again. This means of course that he will be skipping over very pertinent verses.

Psalms 58:3: The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. 

I Samuel 15:3: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 

Deuteronomy 20:16: But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

Deuteronomy 20:17: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: 

Joshua 6:21: And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. 

Joshua 8:25: And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.

Joshua 8:26: For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

The Bible tells us that the wicked go astray as soon as they are born and God commands the Israelites to kill everyone, including infants, when they conquer the land. If infants are wholly innocent and without sin why would God tell His people to kill them? Paul Vendredi is silent on the matter and quickly passes over into a discussion on the validity and purpose of infant baptism which is part 2 of claim 3.

Baptism serves three purposes: initiation, identification, and purification.

Babies are baptised because it is the sign of initiation into the new covenant. Now pay attention to his logic.  Because the Old Testament says this:

Genesis 17:10: This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

And Jesus says this:

Matthew 5:17: ¶Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Matthew 5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Therefore the sign of admission into the covenant by infants remains in effect since the law is not destroyed. The law of circumcision is still 100% valid and in effect. But wait!  Paul says this:

Galatians 5:2: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

Which is reconciled in Colossians.

Colossians 2:11: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Colossians 2:12: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Baptism is thus a metaphorical circumcision.

Before we continue let's examine his logic that the command of circumcision is retained by Christ.  If this is so then the whole law is retained and that means sacrifices, food laws, dress laws, and all the rest.  If one remains then the whole remains. But there is a changing of the law because there is a changing of the priesthood.

Hebrews 7:12: For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Mr. Vendredi claims that the law of circumcision is still in effect but circumcision is superseded by baptism. Which one is it?  Is the law in effect or has the law been superseded?

This is not the place to get into an argument over baptism and whether infant bapstim is valid. Let's just summarise and say that Mr. Vendredi's argument is that babies are only baptised for initiation into the church and identification with Christ, not for purification from sin. 

But if there are three reasons for baptism and they are contiguous then what gives Mr. Vendredi the authority to separate them?  Initiation, identification, and purification all go together.  They are all of one piece. They go together like a horse and carriage. You can't have one without the other. 

Surprise! There is no discussion or justification of this disjoining from Mr. Vendredi.

Claim 4 is the doctrine that "even the smallest sin infinitely offends God because the gravity of a sin depends on the status of the one offended and since God has the highest status imaginable any sin whatsoever is cosmic treason."

This claim is wrong because it is rooted in theurgy which is the basis for magic. The bottom line according to Mr. Vendredi is that sin does not affect God and any Bible passage telling us that God is angry with the wicked or at sin is an instance of anthropopathism and must not be interpreted literally.

Is it true that God does not have eyes and ears or emotions?  Is Jesus God? Was Jesus a man? Here is a syllogism for Mr. Vendredi:

Humans have emotions.
Jesus is God manifested in a human nature.
Therefore God has emotions.

The syllogism is valid, ergo Mr. Vendredi has no legs on which to stand.

But seriously let's get real here.  The Bible says plenty of times that God hates sin and is angry with sinners.

Proverbs 6:16: ¶These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 

Zechariah 8:17: And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD. 

Deuteronomy 1:37: Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither. 

Psalms 5:5: The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. 

Deuteronomy 32:41: If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.

Are these verses anthropopathic? Maybe. They are surely meant to tell us something. What is it? That God is not pleased with sin! That's really the point. God is not pleased with sin.  Does our sin affect him?  David says:

Psalms 51:4: Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Clearly this verse says that our sins affect God. Why would God give a message to Nathan to deliver to David if he was not affected in some way by David's sin? There should be a discussion of this verse but there is not. Once again we have complete silence.

And what about his contention that God is absolutely immutable and changes not?  "If God actually becomes angry then that means at a prior point he was in a state of non-anger. That is not possible." For proof he passes the ball to James.

James 1:17: Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

I won't deny God's immutability. God is immutable. But is he static? Does he never change? Unless creation is eternal and the second person of the trinity has always had a human nature then you better believe there is change of some kind with God.

Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

At one time there was no heaven or earth.  And then God did something.  He created. Genesis 1:1 is proof positive that God is not static. As a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church Mr. Vendredi should know this.  This is what the energy/essence distinction teaches. God is not static. And any category we can apply to him like immutability must be understood in a limited way. The essence and being of God are beyond our comprehension. What if James 1:17 is an anthropomorphism?  Alas the idea is not discussed at all.

Mr. Vendredi finishes his critique of claim four by telling us that it is rooted in medieval society. "When a man stole from a peasant it's no biggie.  When a man stole from the king then he had to die because king is the highest."  He offers zero proof for this statement.  He has nothing to back it up.

He tells us that this is unequal treatment and it is un-American!

 

It's also unbiblical because of this verse:

Leviticus 19:15: ¶Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Paul Vendredi is a past master at misapplying Bible texts. Here we have him applying a verse that calls for equal treatment between men to the relationship between God and man.

The Bible tells us that sinning against God is a great offence.

Genesis 39:9: There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? 

Psalms 51:4: Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 

Revelation of John 18:5: For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 

Exodus 10:16: ¶Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you. 

Joshua 7:20: And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done: 

Judges 10:10: ¶And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, saying, We have sinned against thee, both because we have forsaken our God, and also served Baalim.

Are all these Bible passages rooted in medieval life?  Again there is no discussion of these and like passages.

Does Mr. Vendredi not realise how serious sin is?

Let him hear the words of Isaiah, words he does not deal with at all.

Isaiah 6:5: ¶Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

Proceed to Book 3 

Contra Paul Vendredi Book 1

This will the first in a series of several posts reviewing the arguments of Paul Vendredi against Penal Substitution. These posts will not be refuting him or rebutting him as much as they will be pointing out arguments he has skipped over. It will be shown that Paul Vendredi has graduated from the Krispy Kreme School of Theology which is to say his arguments are full of holes.

These articles will be based on his Cathedral School series on the atonement. I will not be quoting him because according to the disclaimer both before the start and at the close of his podcast I need permission to quote him. Rather than worry about moral and legal wrangling over this issue I will dispense with exact quotations altogether and instead give the equivalent of what he has said.

Ready?  Here we go!

This first article will be a response to Part 58 of his atonement series. Part 58 is where Mr. Vendredi begins to refute the 17 claims of the atonement school.

Claim 1 concerns orginal sin.  

“Because Adam is mankind’s federal head, all mankind is guilty of his sin in the garden of Eden”

He refutes this claim by saying it is not in the Bible but is the product of the blithering, drooling, insane heretic Augustine of Hippo.

Did you ever see a more insane heretic in all your life?

He proves this by making the point that Romans 5:12 is usually mistranslated to read "in whom all have sinned" rather than "because all have sinned."  I am not going to dispute this.  Even the KJV reads "because all have sinned" not "in whom all have sinned." It is a controversial translation issue.

Then we get a few Bible quotes to show that men are responsible for their own sins and not the sins of others.

Ezekiel 18:20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 

Deuteronomy 24:16: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Jeremiah 31:30: But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

See that?  Original sin is impossible because men are responsible for their own sin.

Here's the thing.

There are quite a few verses he passed over in his very limited discussion of this doctrine.  It's not as easy as quoting a verse and then dropping the mic.  

Exodus 20:5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 

Exodus 34:7: Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. 

Numbers 14:18: The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. 

Deuteronomy 5:9: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

In all of these verses we read of children paying for the sins of their fathers.  No mention or discussion of these verses whatsoever.

Then there's this verse:

Hebrews 7:9: And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

Hebrews 7:10: For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Levi paid tithes in Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek despite not even being born! Not a single peep on this verse.  Not one.

And yet it is a verse that clearly shows a man not yet born can be said to have done something in his ancestor.  

Then there is the whole issue that Christ freely made his soul an offering for sin.  

Isaiah 53:10: ¶Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Whose sin is Christ making an offering for?  His own?  Or another's?

Contrary to his claim that he has wiped the slate clean of claim one Mr. Vendredi still has a lot of washing to do.

Moving on to Claim 2 which is Total Depravity. This doctrine teaches that as a result of Adam’s sin all mankind is wicked, totally depraved in all faculties, dead in sin, unable to please God, and unable to even desire to please God.

His refutation of this claim starts with the assertion that Christ had a human nature and if human nature is totally depraved then Christ is totally depraved and this is of course blasphemy.  And if we deny that Christ is exempt from total depravity, well that's the logical fallacy of special pleading.

Again there are verses he totally skips over. Verses that tell us Christ was in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Romans 8:3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Yet without sin.

Hebrews 4:15: For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

And verses that speak about the wickedness of man.

Genesis 8:21: And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Psalms 58:3: The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

No discussion of these two things, Christ taking on human nature without sin and man being a sinner from the womb, at all.  But that's ok because his syllogism is totally valid.

He then goes on to say that total depravity contradicts the natural law theory which states two things:

1. The mind of man can discern the attributes and existence of God just from observing nature. 

2. All men are capable of discerning the commandments of God, are capable of obeying those commandments, and are therefore obligated to obey those commandments.

He proves these points from the Bible using Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 2:14-15 respectively.

 Point 1

Romans 1:18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 

Romans 1:19: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 

Romans 1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 Point 2

Romans 2:14: For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 

Romans 2:15: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Then he presumes to dismantle another prooftext of total depravity,

Romans 3:10: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

by showing that there are many people in the Bible who are called righteous.

Noah 

Genesis 7:1: And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 

Abel

Matthew 23:35: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 

Elisabeth and Zacharias

Luke 1:5: ¶There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 

Luke 1:6: And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

If the Bible calls these men righteous then Romans 3:10 is hyperbole.

Now wait a minute.  Hold the phone there buddy.

What if Romans 3:10 is not hyperbole?  What if those men being called righteous is hyperbole? The Bible does say,

Ecclesiastes 7:20: For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

That includes Noah, Abel, and Zacharias and Elisabeth. All these people were sinners.  Noah was drunk at one point and Zacharias did not believe the angel from God. Are sinners righteous? No. Then perhaps we had better investigate why these men are called righteous. Paul Venderdi does not explore that issue at all.  He passes right by it.

Then he goes on to quote Romans 3:11 to show that the atonement school has engaged in the fallacy of misplaced literalism.

Romans 3:11a: There is none that understandeth

"Oh really?", says Mr. Venderdi.

Exodus 31:2: See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 

Exodus 31:3: And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,

 Boo-yah!  Take that atonement school folks!

Romans 3:11b:  there is none that seeketh after God.

"If that is true literally," says Mr. Vendredi, "then what about the following verses?"

II Chronicles 7:14: If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 

Psalms 42:1: As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. 

Psalms 27:8: When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek. 

Matthew 5:6: Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Where to begin? Romans 3 is about the sinfulness of men and how men do not seek after or understand God. To quote Exodus 31 where God says he gave understanding to a man concerning craftwork so he could construct the ark and all its furniture as prooftext that natural unregenerate men devoid of the Holy Spirit do in fact understand divine things is laughable. The "understanding" in both of those passages are of totally different kinds. Not to mention the fact that God is said to have given Bezaleel his understanding. Bezaleel did not get his understanding by studying to show himself approved. It was a gift from God.

How about none that seeketh? Do we need to be reminded that Romans 3 is talking about the wicked? That Romans 3 is a quotation of Psalm 14?  Do we need to be reminded that Psalm 47 and 28 are both Psalms of David, a man after God's own heart? Of course David is going to be seeking God.  He is not a worker of iniquity.  Do workers of inquity seek after God? Why does anyone seek God in the first place? Why do men thirst and hunger after righteousness? This would have been a good time to bring up a number of passages. 

John 6:44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 

Psalms 85:4: Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger toward us to cease. 

Lamentations 5:21: Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

But he does not bring up these passages to refute them. So once again we have a black hole of theological discussion.

Paul Vendredi thinks he has obliterated claims one and two of the atonement school.

Hulk Hogan's finishing move

But the reality is that he has left many questions unanswered and has quickly passed over any discussion of passages that are contrary to his doctrine.  He has not been thorough in his debunking of claims one and two in the slightest.  

Hulk Hogan's finished

Proceed to Book 2

God's Promises Are Common to All Men

John Calvin's Sermons on Deuteronomy are full of little gems like the following.

Sermons on Deuteronomy 93, pg 575

"God's promises are common to all men because he hath showed himself to be the father  indifferently of all men"

Once again Calvin shows himself to be no friend of those sects who teach the doctrines that God has no dealings with the reprobate whatsoever except to show them wrath, that there is no well-meant offer of the Gospel, and that God is not the Father of all men.

Mother Mary May I?

In the 31st canto of the Divine Comedy Dante is abandoned by his guide and muse Beatrice as she leaves him to sit amongst the blest in the centre of a giant rose.  St. Bernard comes to his aid at the behest of Beatrice to lead him to the end of his pilgrimage.

At this point Dante's journey is almost complete. Only one thing remains. A glimpse of the beatific vision. There's only one problem. He needs the permission of the Blessed Virgin Mary to see this vision.

Mary, Queen of Heaven

The Virgin sits as a queen in the midst of the rose.  She is "sovran" and all the angels fly about her singing and smiling.

Canto 31 

"Child of grace!"

Thus he began: "thou shalt not knowledge gain

Of this glad being, if thine eyes are held

Still in this depth below.  But search around

The circles, to the furthest, till thou spy

Seated in state, the queen, that of this realm

Is sovran."  Straight mine eyes I rais'd; and bright,

As, at the birth of morn, the eastern clime

Above th' horizon, where the sun declines;

To mine eyes, that upward, as from vale

To mountain sped, at th' extreme bound, a part

Excell'd in lustre all the front oppos'd.

And as the glow burns ruddiest o'er the wave,

That waits the sloping beam, which Phaeton

Ill knew to guide, and on each part the light

Diminish'd fades, intensest in the midst;

So burn'd the peaceful oriflame, and slack'd

On every side the living flame decay'd.

And in that midst their sportive pennons wav'd

Thousands of angels; in resplendence each

Distinct, and quaint adornment. At their glee

And carol, smil'd the Lovely One of heav'n,

That joy was in the eyes of all the blest.

In Dante's vision of Paradise the angels sing "Hail Mary, Full of Grace." In a state of pure rapturous joy the very angels of God worship the Virgin Mary. St. Bernard tells Dante that  it is only through her, who most resembles Christ, that we can see Christ.

 Canto 32

"Now raise thy view

Unto the visage most resembling Christ:

For, in her splendour only, shalt thou win

The pow'r to look on him."  Forthwith I saw

Such floods of gladness on her visage shower'd,

From holy spirits, winging that profound;

That, whatsoever I had yet beheld,

Had not so much suspended me with wonder,

Or shown me such similitude of God.

And he, who had to her descended, once,

On earth, now hail'd in heav'n; and on pois'd wing.

"Ave, Maria, Gratia Plena," sang:

To whose sweet anthem all the blissful court,

From all parts answ'ring, rang: that holier joy

Brooded the deep serene.

Grace then must first be gain'd;

Her grace, whose might can help thee.  Thou in prayer

Seek her: and, with affection, whilst I sue,

Attend, and yield me all thy heart."

 So Dante supplicates Mary asking her to grant that he may be able to gaze upon Christ.

Canto 33 

And I, who ne'er

Coveted sight, more fondly, for myself,

Than now for him, my prayers to thee prefer,

(And pray they be not scant) that thou wouldst drive

Each cloud of his mortality away;

That on the sovran pleasure he may gaze.

This also I entreat of thee, O queen!

Who canst do what thou wilt! that in him thou

Wouldst after all he hath beheld, preserve

Affection sound, and human passions quell.

Lo!  Where, with Beatrice, many a saint

Stretch their clasp'd hands, in furtherance of my suit!"

She hears his prayers and grants his request.

The eyes, that heav'n with love and awe regards,

Fix'd on the suitor, witness'd, how benign

She looks on pious pray'rs: then fasten'd they

On th' everlasting light, wherein no eye

Of creature, as may well be thought, so far

Can travel inward.  I, meanwhile, who drew

Near to the limit, where all wishes end,

The ardour of my wish (for so behooved),

Ended within me. Beck'ning smil'd the sage,

That I should look aloft: but, ere he bade,

Already of myself aloft I look'd;

For visual strength, refining more and more,

Bare me into the ray authentical

Of sovran light.  Thenceforward, what I saw,

Was not for words to speak, nor memory's self

To stand against such outrage on her skill.

Thus the greatest poem of the Middle Ages ends with Dante seeing the triune God in all his fullness.

But what are we to make of all this?  

That Dante needs the permission of Mary to see Christ is the end result of her cultus.  Mary is seen as being full of grace and a dispenser of grace. On earth the church prays to her and in paradise the church will continue to pray to her and she will continue be the intermediary between Christ and the church. In Paradise even the angels of God will sing to her and worship her as blessed. 

What wretched nonsense and blasphemy!

To have to supplicate a creature to see the Creator?  To ask Mary for grace when it is Christ who is the fullness of grace and who dispenses grace unto us?  To ask a member of the same body as us to be able to see our head which is Christ? How did the blessed Christ give way to the blessed Virgin?

Romans 9:5: Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

The scriptures give to the righteous a sure and solid promise that they shall see God.

Job 19:26: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: 

Matthew 5:8: Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 

There are no intermediaries mentioned here.  Christ himself promises the the blessed shall see God.

The Divine Comedy is fiction and allegory and a poetic vision but it is theologically grounded.  Dante was no mere layman.  He was a learned man well acquainted with theology and it does come through in this work.  His theology informs his fiction.  

It is too bad that his theology, in which Mary as Queen of Heaven, sits as a dispenser of grace whom we must supplicate in order to see Christ, is wholly fiction.