Contra Paul Vendredi Book 7

Continuing with our critique of Paul Vendredi's critique of the arguments for penal substitution we now come to claims 8 -11 which can be found in the video below.

Claim 8: "God could have canceled mankind's debt simply by willing it.”

Mr. Vendredi agrees with this statement. God did not have to become incarnate and die on a cross in order for man to be redeemed. God could have snapped his fingers and declared mankind redeemed.  God could have sent Benny Hinn to flap his coat at us and redeem us that way. God can do whatever he wants. 

Psalms 135:6: Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.

Let's stop here and take notice of this statement. Can God do whatever he wants? That is not such an easy question to answer and has been a matter of heated debate amongst theologians for a long time. To declare God can do whatever he wants must be qualified and placed within the context of God himself. God does whatsoever he pleases but he is only pleased with acts which are in accordance with his nature. Then there's the issue of what God can do and what he has actually done.

Roughly, his “absolute” power referred to God’s “unrestrained” power, the entire space of possibilities, he could have caused Napoleaon to win the Battle of the Waterloo, or create unicorns, or command that all of us must eat rice on every thursday, etc. His “ordained” power on the other hand referred to what God did in fact do or “ordain” in this world, he called Moses to be a Prophet, he made the grass green, commanded that we should love our neighbours as ourselves, etc.

https://rationalityofaith.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-dialectic-between-the-absolute-and-ordained-power-of-god-or-how-god-cheats-in-answering-prayers/

Keep this in mind because we will return to this concept.

Mr. Vendredi agrees that God did not have to become incarnate but he disagrees with WHY God became incarnate. He believes God became incarnate out of compassion for fallen humanity. He offers no explanation for what this means

The atonement school however believes God became incarnate because "God is stricly just. Winking at a sin, passing over a sin, or leaving any sin unpunished would derogate from God’s holiness and justice.  Therefore God cannot forgive a sin without first punishing the sinner.” This is claim 9 and can be broken down into two parts.

1. God cannot cancel mankind's debt because God is strictly just.

This claim is summarily dismissed by saying "mankind does not owe a debt to anyone or anything because no one can steal from God so no one can owe God a debt."

Does Paul Vendredi pray the Lord's prayer?

Matthew 6:12: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

Luke 11:4: And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Our sins are our debts to God.

God is not strictly just. He is also merciful.

John 8:11: She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

If God is strictly just then He would have consented to the stoning of this woman caught in adultery. Likewise God would not have pardoned David and Bathsheba for their sins if He is strictly just.

II Samuel 12:13: And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Rather than look in depth at these stories Mr. Vendredi is content to dwell on the surface. To forgive the woman caught in adultery is an act of mercy and justice. It is merciful because he forgives her sin.  It is just because the law demands the death of both the adulterous man and woman. 

Deuteronomy 22:22: ¶If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

The man was not there. Only the woman had been brought. Was the testimony of these men even trustworthy? Jesus does not negate or override the law in this passage. He instead reveals the sin in the hearts of all her accusers and, being ashamed, they all leave. With no accusers it would be highly unjust to execute punishment on this woman.

As for David, this is a man greatly beloved by God and through whom the Messiah would come.  Jesus Christ descends through the line of Bathsheba. Indeed God was very merciful to David. But take a look at the some more of this passage.

II Samuel 12:9: Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 

II Samuel 12:10: Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. 

II Samuel 12:11: Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 

II Samuel 12:12: For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 

II Samuel 12:13: And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 

II Samuel 12:14: Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

If that is not temporal punishment then I don't know what is. This is another passage that Mr. Vendredi neglected to discuss when he denied temporal punishment. What you have in these verses are a manifestation of God's mercy and his justice.  He does not let the sin go unpunished but the sinner has his sins put away. David does not die but his son dies and so do a lot of other people as a result of the sword never departing from his house.

2. Leaving any sin unpunished would derogate from God's holiness and justice therefore God cannot forgive a sin without first punishing the sinner.

This is a piece of Biblical illiteracy.

Luke 7:41: There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 

Luke 7:42: And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? 

Luke 7:43: Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.

See the creditor simply forgives without first collecting his debt from another source.

Matthew 18:27: Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

Here again the debt is forgiven without having to recoup the debt from somewhere else.

Luke 15:20: And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

Even with the prodigal son we see that the debt is forgiven freely. The son is not forced to work as a hireling to pay off the debt.

So much for claim 9.

Not really. Mr. Vendredi seems to forget that these are all parables and that they are to illustrate a point.  They are not to be taken literally.  Whatever these parables mean Christ still died on the cross in our place taking our sins upon him.  He became sin.  He became a curse.  He laid down his life for us. We are reconciled to God through Christ. No death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, no reconciliation.

II Corinthians 5:21: For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Galatians 3:13: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

None of these parables mentions anything about the need for reconciliation to God through a mediator dying and rising again. Mr. Vendredi's explanation of these parables, that God can freely forgive sin without punishing a sinner, does not take into account the very reality that we are redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ who died in our stead.  All of this merits a further discussion which Mr. Vendredi does not offer.

Claim 10: “The atoning sacrifice must die by crucifixion so that the atonement can mirror the fall of Adam at a tree so that the atonement can be as painful as possible since the fall was as painless as possible and so that the sacrificial victim can be cursed by God."

This claim is so long that it's best to break it down.

1. “Christ must die on a tree so that that atonement can mirror the fall of Adam at a tree.”

This is true and is testified by commentators throughout church history.

The problem is that the atonement school says Christ's death must be as painful as possible because the fall was painless. The atonement must be painless and easy if the mirror image is to work.

It does not follow that the atonement must be as painful as possible. The real reason the atonement school holds this position is because penal substitution is really just torture porn for angry Augustinians.  

It seems that Mr. Vendredi just cannot help himself. He must always go for the low blow. Torture porn? Seriously? I guess all those hymns about the cross and the blood of Christ are just so much torture porn.

"Nothing But the Blood"
"Are You Washed in the Blood"
"At the Cross"
"The Old Rugged Cross"
"There is a Fountain"
"There is Power in the Blood"
"When I Survey the Wondrous Cross"
"The Blood Will Never Lose Its Power"
"Alas! and Did My Saviour Bleed?"

What are these but the anthems of angry Augustinians revelling gleefully in the torture of Christ?

Mr. Vendredi may not like it but there are many who find comfort in the sufferings of Christ. They find comfort in the fact that Christ suffered the punishment they deserved. Throughout Church history millions of Christians have found solace in meditating upon the stations of the cross. For him to denigrate these people as "angry Augustinians" or to say this is torture porn is foolishness and shows he does not care to accurately represent his opponents and does not care about what they really teach and believe.

2. “Christ must die by crucifixion so he can be cursed by God in accordance with Deuteronomy”

This is another claim which receives Mr. Vendredi's seal of approval. 

Though he does disagree with the whole Christ becoming a curse thing.

Christ's blood HAS to be shed in order for mankind to be saved. The blood MUST be shed by crucifixion. Why?

1. A public death proclaims his divinity via the resurrection by precluding any notion that he faked his death. 

2. Hanging in the air destroys the power of Satan who is the prince of the air. 

3. It has iconic significance.

Here Mr. Vendredi says God MUST do something where as previously he said God can do whatever he wants. So which is it?  Is God bound by necessity or is he free to do what he wishes?

No discussion. Maybe he thinks no one will notice this contradiction? This is where the distinction between God's absolute power (he can do anything) in contrast to his ordained power (what God has actually done) comes into play.  Did God really shed his blood on the cross out of necessity? Or did he do it absolutely freely?  If he was bound by necessity then claim 8 is wrong. If claim 8 is not wrong then this claim is wrong. 

This kind of discussion is not beyond the scope of a discussion about the atonement. It is right in the claims being made. Yet Mr. Vendredi does not even touch it. Not even a glance.

Claim 11: "Because its debt is an infinite debt owned to an infinite being mankind cannot satisfactorily pay its debt. The only commodity valuable enough to recompense God for his stolen honour, to appease his wrath against sin, and to render him propitious is the shed blood of a god-man."

This claim is false because man does not owe God a debt and our sins do not affect God. They affect ourselves.

Proverbs 5:22: ¶His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. 

Jeremiah 2:19: Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts. 

Jeremiah 7:19: Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

Of course men's sins affect themselves. All men are ensnared by their own wickedness. So what? None of those verses proves what Mr. Vendredi say they prove, that our sins do not affect God. In fact let's quote the verse following Jeremiah 7:19.

Jeremiah 7:20: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.

They provoke themselves to anger yet God is still angry and will pour out his fury. 

 

Mr. Vendredi pulls out three verses which he thinks prove our sins do not affect God in anyway. Three! Here are six verses that prove 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.

Once more Mr. Vendredi does not wish to interact with certain scriptures which disprove his point.

He ends by telling us that ascribing wrath to God is merely anthropopahism designed to scare people into doing what's right for them. The Bible had to be written in such a way that it could be understood by all people in all eras. So its written to appeal to the lowest cognitive level, that of fear. Any real talk of the wrath of God is misplaced literalism.

So God is just faking us out?  Is God lying to us? What is going on exactly when God says he will pour out his wrath on the unrighteous and that he hates sinners? Mr. Vendredi does not go into any detail. He just repeats ad infinitum, hyperbole, anthropopaphism, anthropomorphism; hyperbole, anthropopaphism, anthropomorphism; hyperbole, anthropopaphism, anthropomorphism; hyperbole, anthropopaphism, anthropomorphism..........

Proceed to Book 8

Contra Paul Vendredi Book 6

This is the final critique of claim number seven which has six sub-arguments. In Book 5 sub-arguments 1-3 were covered. Paul Vendredi's critique of sub-claims 4-6 can be found in the video below.

Sub-claim 4: "God has demanded blood sacrifice from all men in all eras."

This is completely false and unbiblical. God only demands blood sacrifice in the Mosaic era. The atonement school's assertion that Cain's sacrifice was rejected because it was vegetable and not animal is likewise false and unbiblical.  The Bible only tells us THAT his sacrifice was rejected, not WHY it was rejected.  The atonement school adds words to the text when they posit imaginary conversations between God and Cain to this effect. Besides this the Church Fathers are pretty unanimous that the problem was not that the sacrifice was unbloody.

There are two things to take notice of in this critique.

First of all is the following principle found in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

http://www.reformation21.org/confession/2013/01/chapter-16.php

"Adding words" to the scripture is not necessarily twisting the scripture, being unfaithful to the scripture or "adding to the scripture."  Case in point: the Trinity. The Bible does not give us a dogma of the Trinity. Monotheletism, hypostasis, essence, all that has been formulated in the church councils is not in the Bible but is deduced from it by good and necessary consequence.

More to the point for this podcast on the atonement is Genesis 3.

Genesis 3:21: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Nowhere are we told that God killed animals to make coats of skin. But good and necessary consequence leads us to that conclusion. Furthermore it is only logical to assume that God killing these animals was done to instruct Adam in animal sacrifice.  Why does Abel offer animals?  Why does Cain offer vegetables?  Who taught these men to sacrifice in the first place? Good and necessary consequence would lead us to believe that God taught Adam who taught his sons.  

Needless to say Paul Vendredi does not wrestle with these difficult discussions but he settles for a simplistic hermeneutic by taking the text only at face value and rejecting any exploration of the underlying themes.  

For adding words to the text about God demanding animal sacrifices Mr. Vendredi says that across the span of the series he has called a number of people liars, heretics, and hypocrites, most notably R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur but he did it in a really silly slapstick kind of way because he doesn't actually take these guys as seriously as he probably should. He just views them as clowns.

Perhaps if he took these men seriously and the theology they teach seriously then his podcast would not be filled to overflowing with lewd, inane, and repulsive jesting.

Ephesians 5:3: But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 

Ephesians 5:4: Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

Second of all if it is true, and it is, that the Bible does not tell us WHY Cain's offering was rejected then any explanation of the rejection is pure speculation. Therefore there is no reason for Mr. Vendredi to accept the explanation of the Fathers that the rejection of Cain's sacrifice had nothing to do with blood as being the authoritative explanation.

Sub-argument 5: "God enjoys blood sacrifice."

This claim contradicts the Bible. 

Micah 6:6: ¶Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? 

Micah 6:7: Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 

Micah 6:8: He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

God requires obedience not sacrifice. When the Lord is said to find the sacrifices sweet smelling that is in reference to the obedience of the offerer and not the burning carcass.

I Samuel 15:22: And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

It's true.  God does require obedience and offering a sacrifice with an unclean heart is not pleasing to God.  However it is also true that God requires sacrifice. The law is replete with the command to sacrifice. Whatever interpretation one takes it is a fact that God does require sacrifice. Even amongst Christians.

Hebrews 13:15: By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

Next Mr. Vendredi refers to story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22. This passage opens with God commanding Abraham to offer Isaac his only son for a burnt offering. God stays Abraham's hand from offering Isaac and the story ends with God rewarding Abraham for his obedience.

Genesis 22:16: And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 

Genesis 22:17: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 

Genesis 22:18: And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

God blesses Abraham for acting out of obedience not for offering a blood sacrifice. God does not receive Isaac in sacrifice at all and appears simply to ignore the ram that Abraham of his own volition substitutes for Isaac.

God does not receive Isaac in sacrifice at all and appears simply to ignore the ram that Abraham of his own volition substitutes for Isaac.

Genesis 22:7: And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 

Genesis 22:8: And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. 

Genesis 22:9: And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. 

Genesis 22:10: And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 

Genesis 22:11: And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 

Genesis 22:12: And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.  

Genesis 22:13: And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 

Genesis 22:14: And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah–jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

What does Jehovah-jireh mean?

And what did the Lord provide? What did he see to? The ram!  He provided the ram and saw to it that a proper sacrifice was offered to him instead of Isaac!

How can Mr. Vendredi not only miss the meaning of this story as a prefigurement of Christ but also pass over the actual events of this story with a straight face? 

He then quotes from the 6th Festal Letter of Athansius to prove his point that the testing of Abraham was all about Abraham's obedience. Has he even read this letter? Here is the section immediately prior to the one he quotes.

For thus the patriarch Abraham rejoiced not to see his own day, but that of the Lord; and thus looking forward 'he saw it, and was glad.' And when he was tried, by faith he offered up Isaac, and sacrificed his only-begotten son— he who had received the promises. And, in offering his son, he worshipped the Son of God. And, being restrained from sacrificing Isaac, he saw the Messiah in the ram, which was offered up instead as a sacrifice to God. The patriarch was tried, through Isaac, not however that he was sacrificed, but He who was pointed out in Isaiah; 'He shall be led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers he shall be speechless ;' but He took away the sin of the world. And on this account [Abraham] was restrained from laying his hand on the lad, lest the Jews, taking occasion from the sacrifice of Isaac, should reject the prophetic declarations concerning our Saviour, even all of them, but more especially those uttered by the Psalmist; 'Sacrifice and offering You would not; a body You have prepared Me;' and should refer all such things as these to the son of Abraham.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806006.htm

St. Athanasius does not agree with Mr. Vendredi at all when he says God ignores the ram Abraham offered up in sacrifice.  This holy man tell us that the Messiah was prefigured in the ram!

Sub-argument 6: "Blood sacrifice is an atonement transaction."

This is the atonement school's strongest argument because it is based on two very explicit scriptures.

Leviticus 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 

Hebrews 9:22: And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

But these verses are hyperbole. For if it is the case that only blood can make an atonement then the Bible contradicts itself.  There are several places where we are told atonement was made without blood.

Atonement by a tenth of an ephah of flour. 

Leviticus 5:11: ¶But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. 

Leviticus 5:12: Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering. 

Leviticus 5:13: And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.

Atonement by the scapegoat. 

Leviticus 16:10: But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Atonement by non-bloody liturgical works.

Numbers 8:19: And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the tabernacle of the congregation, and to make an atonement for the children of Israel: that there be no plague among the children of Israel, when the children of Israel come nigh unto the sanctuary.

Atonement by offering up incense. 

Numbers 16:46: ¶And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun. 

Numbers 16:47: And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made an atonement for the people. 

Numbers 16:48: And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed.

Atonement by offering up treasure.

Numbers 31:50: We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.

Atonement by destroying idols.

Isaiah 27:9: By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this is all the fruit to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.

Atonement by good works and kindness to the poor.

Daniel 4:27: Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

Atonement by repentance and fasting.

Jonah 3:10: ¶And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Atonement by offering up golden mice and haemorrhoids.

I Samuel 6:7: Now therefore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their calves home from them: 

I Samuel 6:8: And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return him for a trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and send it away, that it may go.

Now these are all very interesting verses which deserve a further scrutiny which will not be given here. Mr. Vendredi fails to tell us how the atonements in these passages are related at all to the atonement of Christ. He declines to even define atonement. Instead of giving a litany of verses that offer up difficult circumstances to exegete and that serve only to confuse the listener into thinking that man can be atoned by artwork and treasure he should have explained how it is that Christ does or does not atone for our sins by his own blood.

Colossians 1:14: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 

I Peter 1:18: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 

I Peter 1:19: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:  

Hebrews 13:12: Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 

Hebrews 9:12: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.  

Hebrews 9:13: For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:  

Hebrews 9:14: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Those are just a few of the many verses in the New Testament that tell us we are redeemed by, sanctified by, and atoned for by the blood of Jesus Christ. Mr. Vendredi should have stuck to passages like these since his series is about the atonement of Christ.  Is this all hyperbole?  If so then what is the true meaning of these verses?

There is no discussion.

Before moving on to the remaining criticism of this sub-argument Mr. Vendredi breaks off into a long tangent about himself that speaks volumes about his state of mind.

"I have put together THE most thoroughgoing destruction of vicarious atonement EVER!  You will not find this information anywhere else on the planet. It is not taught in the seminaries. It is not on the lips of parish priests. It is not found in any book in anything like clarity or development. And what about all you’ve learned just in the sidebars of these shows? Orthodox eucharistic theology, infant baptism, syllogistic logic. Yet all anyone wants to talk about is (in a high pitched, mocking voice) he calls St. Augustine “disgustin’ augustine.” Why cant he be more reverent?"

Could he be more arrogant and childish? Whoever heard of an irreverent Christian ministry?

Continuing with his criticism he tell us that the atonement school views the atonement as a vending machine where one puts an animal sacrifice into the slot and out comes the Snickers bar of atonement.

One has to be forgiven in order to offer sacrifice. Jesus said so.

Matthew 5:23: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 

Matthew 5:24: Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

If animal sacrifice is an antonement transaction then the attitude of the offerer would make no difference. The bare fact that blood has been shed should be enough appease God. Sacrifices are invalid when offered with bad intent and with a bad heart. And God hates these sacrifices.

Amos 5:21: ¶I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. 

Amos 5:22: Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. 

Amos 5:23: Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. 

Amos 5:24: But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

I agree with Mr. Vendredi. Sacrifices offered blithely and while still in a state of sin are abhorrent to God. But why is he now taking the hatred of God literally?  I thought God's hatred was all hyperbole and a byproduct of human sin colliding with the divine energies? Does God hate or does he not hate?

If Mr. Vendredi is really intent on proving that the sacrifices in the Old Testament are not atonement transactions he has a whole lot further to go.  It's no wonder the material in this series is not being taught in seminaries. Here are just a few verses that bear comment and which Mr. Vendredi neglects.

Hebrews 9:13: For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 

Hebrews 9:14: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 10:1: For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 

Hebrews 10:2: For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 

Hebrews 10:3: But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 

Hebrews 10:4: For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 

Hebrews 10:5: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 

Hebrews 10:6: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 

Hebrews 10:7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 

Hebrews 10:8: Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 

Hebrews 10:9: Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 

Hebrews 10:10: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.  

Hebrews 10:11: And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 

Hebrews 10:12: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 

Hebrews 10:13: From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 

Hebrews 10:14: For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

This passage in Hebrews 10 is especially rich in sacrificial imagery.  We are told that God does not take pleasure in burnt offering and offerings for sin as Mr. Vendredi has said. But we are told that Christ had a body prepared for Him by which he offered a sacrifice for sin and sanctifies us and which Mr. Vendredi neglects to explain. This very important passage is essential to understanding both the Old Testament sacrifices and the death of Jesus Christ. It's so important that for Mr. Vendredi to neglect it is inexcusable and inconceivable.

Proceed to Book 7

Contra Paul Vendredi Book 5

Today we will be critiquing Mr. Vendredi's critique of the first three of the six sub-arguments of claim seven.

Sub-argument 1: God hates us and wants to kill us.

Mr. Vendredi says God's hate is proved by cherry-picking verses from the Bible and misapplying them through an abuse of anthropopaphism. To substantiate this he reads a list of verses regarding God's hatred which he pulled from Westboro Baptist Church.

http://godhatesfags.com/bible/God-hates.html

He then goes on to tell his audience that the one and only attitude God has towards men is love.

I John 4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Since God is unchanging and unwavering,

Hebrews 13:8: Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.  

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.

his attitude of love is also unchanging.

This love is God's unchanging essence.

Right away we have quite a few problems. God's essence is totally unknowable. To say that God's essence is love is to contradict the essence/energy distinction. Men encounter God and know him through love which is an energy of God. That would make the statement, "God is love," anthropopathic. Seems Mr. Vendredi is making the same mistake of which he accuses the atonement school.

Secondly let's quote a little bit more of that section in 1 John 4.

I John 4:10: Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 

I John 4:11: Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 

I John 4:12: No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 

I John 4:13: Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. 

I John 4:14: And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

I John 4:15: Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 

I John 4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

The love in this passage refers to the sending of Jesus Christ to be a propitiation for our sins. Do all men confess that Jesus is the Son of God?  No. Therefore not all men have God dwelling in them nor are they dwelling in God nor can they speak of God's love. 

Third is his accusation of cherry-picking these verses.

There are 19 verses in that collection from Westboro Baptist Church. And there are many more that can be pulled up. How about these few:

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; 

Ephesians 5:6: Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 

Revelation of John 19:15: And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Do these verses show an unwavering and unchanging attitude of love on the part of God toward men or do they show wrath and hatred against sin and sinners?  Mr. Vendredi says that any such appareance of God's hatred is  the result of human sin colliding with God's unchanging energies.

Which energies would those be?  He fails to elaborate. If death and wrath are only appearances of God's hatred and simply the natural result of what happens when sin and God collide then what about the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of Egypt via the plagues and the drowning of Pharaoh's army, the Babylonian captivity, and the destruction of the temple and dispersion of the Jews in 70 A.D.? What is the true meaning behind theses passages which tell us God hates and is full of wrath toward sin and sinners?

There is no discussion. Mr. Vendredi passes them by with the simplistic explanation that what appears to be hatred and wrath are so only in appearance.


Sub-argument 2: “To appease God’s hatred, we have to kill animals as proxies for ourselves.”

Before descending into more absurdity Mr. Vendredi justifies his distinction of the pre- and post-golden calf legislation by referring to the Didascalia Apostolurum and the Apostolic Constitutions. Why does he think these documents have any authority in establishing doctrine? The Church, both East and West, does not accept these books as canonical or authoritative.

The earliest mention of the work is by Epiphanius of Salamis, who believed it to be truly Apostolic. He found it in use among the Audiani, Syrian heretics. The few extracts Epiphanius gives do not quite tally with our present text, but he is notoriously inexact in his quotations. At the end of the fourth century the Didascalia was used as the basis of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions. At the end of the 4th century it is quoted in the Pseudo-Chrysostom's Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum. But the Didascalia never had a great vogue, and it was superseded by the Apostolic Constitutions. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didascalia_Apostolorum

The Church seems never to have regarded this work as of undoubted Apostolic authority. The Apostolic Constitutions were rejected as canonical by the Decretum Gelasianum. The Quinisext Council in 692 rejected most part of the work on account of the interpolations of heretics. Only that portion of it to which has been given the name Canons of the Apostles was received in the Eastern Christianity. Even if not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin, however, in antiquity the Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation. The Apostolic Constitutions were accepted as canonical by John of Damascus and, in a modified form, included in the 81 book canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions

Mr. Vendredi's source for labelling the post-golden calf law as a second legislation that acted as a punishment for apostasy is a book used by heretics and rejected by the Church as being non-canonical. Does he realise that those books hold no weight in the Church?

Not withstanding he calls the law a second legislation and says that this is what Paul is usually referring to when he writes of the law.  Thus Romans 3:20 becomes:

Romans 3:20: Therefore by the deeds of the second legislation there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the second legislation is the knowledge of sin.

If it is true Paul was writing about the second legislation and if it is true that this law is to remind Aaron and the nation of Israel of the sin of apostasy then why does he bring it up since he is writing to gentile Romans?  And what about the following verse?

Romans 3:21: But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Was there a righteousness in the so-called second legislation?  Or is Paul here referring to the whole shebang, ten commandments and all?

To prove that animals cannot stand as substitutes for men Mr. Vendredi quotes the story of the prophet Baalam and his donkey.

Numbers 22:32: And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: 

Numbers 22:33: And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.

According to Mr. Vendredi this passage tells us that an animal cannot be sacrificed as a proxy for a human being because the angel explicitly says he would have killed Balaam for the sin that he was committing but would have spared the innocent donkey.

Has this man gone insane?

Why would the angel sacrifice the donkey? Does Mr. Vendredi know that donkeys are unclean animals not fit for sacrifice?

Exodus 34:20: But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

The angel says he would have killed Balaam.  Full stop.  There is nothing about sacrificing animals in this passage or that tells us that animals cannot stand as proxies for men.  In fact let me quote a story where just this thing happens and which Mr. Vendredi totally ignores.

Genesis 22:7: And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 

Genesis 22:8: And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.  

Genesis 22:12: And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. 

Genesis 22:13: And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

This famous incident is a prefigurement of Christ, the lamb of God, being offered up and sacrificed in our stead.  For Mr. Vendredi to ignore this story and to use the story of Balaam and his donkey to prove that animals cannot be proxies for men is not even cherry-picking. It is madness. It is not sane.  It is terrible hermeneutics.

Then just to show how puerile and childish his mind is Mr. Vendredi breaks off on a tangent and snickers at the outdated Biblical language in the following verses:

II Peter 2:16: But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. 

II Kings 9:8: For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel: 

Jeremiah 49:32: And their camels shall be a booty, and the multitude of their cattle a spoil: and I will scatter into all winds them that are in the utmost corners; and I will bring their calamity from all sides thereof, saith the LORD.

Now one begins to understand why the whole series of podcasts is chock full of the lewdest and most childish forms of humour.


Sub-argument 3: "When we fail to appease God with blood or when we displease him in some other way he inflicts temporal punishment on us."

Mr.Vendredi dismantles the prooftext for this argument by presuming to dismantle the story of Uzzah which is used to bolster this claim of God inflicting temporal punishment.

II Samuel 6:6: ¶And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. 

II Samuel 6:7: And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.

God did not kill Uzzah. The description of Uzzah's death is phenomenological. From the standpoint of the onlookers it appears that his death is the result of God's anger. In reality his death is the byproduct of human interaction with divine energies.  Which energies are those?  And if those divine energies are what killed Uzzah then how is logical to say that God did not kill Uzzah? Mr. Vendredi does not say.  In fact he ignores the whole telling of this incident as it occurs in 1 Chronicles 13-15.  He also ignores the reaction of David who was most displeased and afraid for God having made a breach upon Uzzah.

II Samuel 6:8: And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of the place Perez–uzzah to this day. 

II Samuel 6:9: And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?

Silly David.  If he only knew that what he saw, God striking down Uzzah, was not real.  It was only his perception.  

Mr. Vendredi tottally ignores the passages in 1 Chronicles 15 where David says explicitly that God  struck down Uzzah and caused a breach because they did not seek God after the due order

I Chronicles 15:1: And David made him houses in the city of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched for it a tent. 

I Chronicles 15:2: Then David said, None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the LORD chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him for ever.

I Chronicles 15:12: And said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it. 

I Chronicles 15:13: For because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.I Chronicles 15:14: So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel. 

I Chronicles 15:15: And the children of the Levites bare the ark of God upon their shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded according to the word of the LORD.

Is David still wrong here?  Is he working from a faulty perception that it was God who killed Uzzah? Mr. Vendredi fails to touch these passages which tell us that God's law must be obeyed.  The order he has set up must be followed. The nation of Israel as well as Uzzah disobeyed the law by not transporting the Ark at God had commanded and that is why God struck him down.

He then goes on to tell us that Uzzah had good intentions when he reached out his hand to stabilise the Ark and keeps from falling. He does this by quoting from Matthew 5 verses where Christ says:

Matthew 5:22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.  

Matthew 5:28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This proves that God looks at the intention of the heart. Uzzah's intentions were good therefore God could not have killed him. If God was in fact angry with him and did in fact kill him even though he had good intentions then God is schizophrenic. Never mind the holiness of God and his law. Never mind the fact that God set up a specific way to transport the Ark which David neglected. Even the Jews who run Hollywood know that messing with the Ark is a big no-no.

Don't mess with the Ark

Perhaps Mr. Vendredi has never heard the saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Let's take a look at two stories where a man had good intentions.

First in 1 Samuel 13.

I Samuel 13:11: ¶And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash; 

I Samuel 13:12: Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the LORD: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering. 

I Samuel 13:13: And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.

Second in 1 Samuel 15.

I Samuel 15:19: Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD? 

I Samuel 15:20: And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 

I Samuel 15:21: But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal. 

I Samuel 15:22: And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 

I Samuel 15:23: For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

In the first story Saul offers a burnt offering with the greatest of intentions. In the second he saves alive the spoil with the good intention of sacrificing the sheep and oven to the Lord. Both times Samuel and the Lord are angry at Saul for breaking the commandment of the Lord. His good intentions do not matter one whit because despite his intentions he is disobedient to the commandment.  Mr. Vendredi does not discuss this story and passes it right on by as he does so many other passages which contradict his assertions.


The rest of the podcast deals with the objection that temporal punishment does not happen in this life. The wicked prosper and righteous perish. An objection made from the beginning.  

Jeremiah 12:1: Righteous art thou, O LORD, when I plead with thee: yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously?

It is a hard question and one not easily answered. We know why Job suffered but Job never learns the answer. We do know suffering happens in this life and as Solomon says:

Ecclesiastes 9:2: All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.

Does the prosperity of the wicked men that there is no temporal punishment in this life?  No. In fact not all wicked men prosper.  Some wicked men are very poor.  Some righteous men are very rich.  It is not enough to see the prosperity of the wicked and think God does not punish sin in this life.

There is death in it's multitude of forms. Plagues, famines, hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, war, accidents. All things come alike to all. 

Romans 8:22: For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

The wicked do not have it easy in this life no matter how at ease they appear.

Proverbs 13:15: Good understanding giveth favour: but the way of transgressors is hard.

The whole earth is under a curse because of sin. Both the righteous and the wicked grow together in this life partaking of it's curses and blessings.

Then there is chastisement which God pours upon his people.

Hebrews 12:5: And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 

Hebrews 12:6: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 

Hebrews 12:7: If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 

Hebrews 12:8: But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. 

Hebrews 12:9: Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? 

Hebrews 12:10: For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

Is there a difference between chastening and punishment?  If so then what is it and if not then why not?

But none of this is discussed by Mr. Vendredi. He passes it by like ships that pass in the night.

Proceed to Book 6