In Augustine's exposition of Psalm 55 there is a brilliant defense of the necessity of heretics within the church. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. Heretics and dissensions try, prove, and purge the church. As Augustine writes,
"For many things lay hid in the Scriptures: and when heretics had been cut off, with questions they troubled the Church of God: then those things were opened which lay hid, and the will of God was understood."
Without heretics coming along and causing dissension with their false teachings many truths would have remain hidden because there was no need to dredge them up. It is like a snow globe which unless it is shaken remains peaceful and quiet. But once it is shaken all the snow floats around the water and perhaps even a sweet melody is played once the key is turned.
21. And His heart has drawn nearPsalm 54:22. Of whom do we understand it, except of Him, by the anger of whom they have been divided? How has his heart drawn near? In such sort, that we may understand His will. For by heretics has been vindicated the Catholic Church, and by those that think evil have been proved those that think well. For many things lay hid in the Scriptures: and when heretics had been cut off, with questions they troubled the Church of God: then those things were opened which lay hid, and the will of God was understood. Thence is said in another Psalm, In order that they might be excluded that have been proved with silver. For let them be excluded, He has said, let them come forth, let them appear. Whence even in silver-working men are called excluders, that is, pressers out of form from the sort of confusion of the lump. Therefore many men that could understand and expound the Scriptures
very excellently, were hidden among the people of God: but they did not
declare the solution of difficult questions, when no reviler again
urged them. For was the Trinity perfectly treated of before the Arians
snarled thereat? Was repentance perfectly treated of before the
Novatians opposed? So not perfectly of Baptism was it treated, before
rebaptizers removed outside contradicted; nor of the very oneness of
Christ were the doctrines clearly stated which have been stated, save
after that this separation began to press upon the weak: in order that
they that knew
how to treat of and solve these questions (lest the weak should perish
vexed with the questions of the ungodly), by their discourses and
disputations should bring out unto open day the dark things of the Law..
..This obscure sense see in what manner the Apostle brings out into
light; It is needful, he says, that also heresies there be, in order that men proved may be made manifest among you.1 Corinthians 11:19 What is men proved? Proved with silver, proved with the word. What is may be made manifest? May be brought out. Wherefore this? Because of heretics. So therefore these also have been divided because of the anger of His countenance, and His heart has drawn near.
I have not published on this blog in quite a while which is a shame because I have been reading so much and learning even more. Therefore I am going to start publishing quotes of interest I come across while reading. At the moment I am reading St. Augustine's "On the Psalms" which is volume 8 in the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers series. In his exposition of Psalm 53 St. Augustine briefly touches on the doctrine of theosis or divinization. This is the doctrine that our salvation consists in us becoming partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) and sharing in the uncreated glory which the Father gave to the Son (John 17:22). Such a doctrine of soteriology is completely at odds with the forensic justification of legal declaration of non-guilt and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ which is the basis of the Protestant doctrine of salvation. The righteousness imputed to us in the Protestant scheme is the created righteousness of Christ's human merits and not his own essential righteousness. Thus in Protestantism one is not really partaking of the divine nature or really even united to Christ.
5. What is that which looking forth we acknowledge? What is that which
looking forth God acknowledges? What (because here He gives it) does He
acknowledge? Hear what it is; that All have gone aside, together useless they have become: there is not one that does good, there is not so much as one. What then is that other question, but the same whereof a little before I have made mention? If, There is not one that does good, is not so much as one, no one remains to groan amid evil
men. Stay, says the Lord, do not hastily give judgment. I have given to
men to do well; but of Me, He says, not of themselves: for of
themselves evil they are: sons of men they are, when they do evil; when well, My sons. For this thing God does, out of sons of men He makes sons of God: because out of Son of God He has made Son of Man.
See what this participation is: there has been promised to us a
participation of Divinity: He lies that has promised, if He is not first
made partaker of mortality. For the Son of God
has been made partaker of mortality, in order that mortal man may be
made partaker of divinity. He that has promised that His good is to be
shared with you, first with you has shared your evil: He that to you has promised divinity, shows in you love. Therefore take away that men are sons of God, there remains that they are sons of men: There is none that does good, is not so much as one.
He became to some a stout wall and rampart, Jeremiah 1:18 to others an axe breaking the rock in pieces, or a fire among the thorns, as the divine Scripture says, easily destroying those fagots who were insulting the Godhead.
The Cappadocians were tough men who fought hard against the heretics in defence of the Holy Trinity. Doctrinal purity matters especially when it comes to the Godhead. Would there were more stalwart men today who would defend these Holy Truths with all their might.
Jay Dyer is the man behind Jay's Analysis, a website and podcast dedicated to geopolitics, conspiracies, film, and theology. Recently he has posted a response to Fr Stephen Freeman regarding his very low and higher critical view of scripture. The impetus for his response is that Fr Freeman deleted comments Jay posted on his blog thereby indicating his refusal to even deal with the issues Jay raised. (It should be noted that Fr Freeman has restored that comment.)
This is all very ironic because the impetus for this article is that I posted a question on Jay's twitter feed and instead of answering it he insulted me and then blocked me.
That's not an argument, Jay.
Philippinefails is my other blog which deals with life here in the Philippines. I had been sending Jay updates about martial law in the Philippines and the slow march to a dictatorship as well as engaging him on other topics.
Another twitter user who was part of that thread said I was misinformed but did not respond to my questions about what it was of which I was misinformed.
More questions regarding the Orthodox low view of scripture
Using the twitter account associated with this blog, Orthodoxbridge, I contacted Jay and voiced my disappointment that he would toss an ad hominem my way and then block me for asking a question. After several messages he finally replied and said I was writing heresy and that I was harassing him with easily answered objections. Rather than explain how a question is heresy or answer what he calls an easily answered objection he blocked me again.
There is absolutely nothing objectionable in Jay's response to Fr Freeman. It is a rousing defence of the literal truth of scripture against the school of higher critics. Likewise his quotations from various church fathers regarding scripture bolster his claims as being fundamentally Orthodox and Christian.
However, Jay laments that when he speaks so highly of scripture he is labeled a Protestant despite his high view of scripture being in agreement with the views of the Church Fathers. He even claims that Fr Freeman says he "sounds Protestant."
Where are the proofs Fr Freeman believes Jay "sounds Protestant?"
This is where my question comes in.
Why would Orthodox opinions be labelled Protestant teaching?
What follows are a few lines of thought I had on the subject which Jay refused to engage with.
The Confession of Dositheos states in no uncertain terms that only the initiated are to read the scripture.
Question 1
Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians?
No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.
Question 2
Are the Scriptures plain to all Christians that read them?
If the Divine Scriptures were plain to all Christians that read them, the Lord would not have commanded such as desired to obtain salvation to search them; {John 5:39} and Paul would have said without reason that God had placed the gift of teaching in the Church; {1 Corinthians 13:28} and Peter would not have said of the Epistles of Paul that they contained some things hard to be understood. {2 Peter 3:16} It is evident, therefore, that the Scriptures are very profound, and their sense lofty; and that they need learned and divine men to search out their true meaning, and a sense that is right, and agreeable to all Scripture, and to its author the Holy Spirit.
Certainly, those that are regenerated [in Baptism] must know the faith concerning the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, His passion, resurrection, and ascension into the heavens. Yet what concerns regeneration and judgment — for which many have not hesitated to die — it is not necessary, indeed impossible, for them to know what the Holy Spirit has made apparent only to those who are disciplined in wisdom and holiness.
This confession even goes so far as to say that especially the Old Testament is forbidden to be read. But the Old Testament is the Bible of the early church. The Old Testament contains the promises in the New Testament. The Old Testament is essential to understanding the New.
The Confession of Dositheos is the end result of the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem. This synod was convened to refute Protestant errors. It is highly likely that Questions 1 and 2 are directed against the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. To safeguard the faith a prohibition is placed on just anyone reading the scriptures. Only the learned are allowed to read and even then they are only to read as long as they have "the mind of the Church."
Might it be that the result of this prohibition has been a culture suspicious of Bible reading?
One objection Jay might raise to this is that despite this confession Bible reading is not actually prohibited by the Orthodox. In fact there is an Orthodox Study Bible. But really there is no such thing. There is no official church sanctioned Orthodox Study Bible. The OSB is born out of the numerous conversions of Evangelicals to Orthodoxy and bears in its DNA the Protestantism of its initial publisher, Thomas Nelson.
Jay might want to read these critical reviews if he has not already:
If the Orthodox are reading the Bible now, it has not always been that way. Fr Seraphim Rose noted that the Russian Orthodox were highly ignorant of the scriptures because they did not read them.
Father Seraphim Rose, pg. 277
What accounts for this change in Bible reading habits among the Orthodox if not the influx of Protestant converts?
Aside from the Confession of Dositheos I think another reason why the Orthodox would call Jay a Protestant is because so many who have converted from Protestantism are reactionary. They go from Sola Scriptura to the extremes of submitting to Church tradition. They know and have experienced how fractured Protestantism is and wish to extricate themselves from it completely. So they put down the Bible and pick up the Schaff edition of the ECF or the SVS Pocket Patristics and attempt to get into the mind of the Church before they get back into reading the Bible.
But there is a huge problem. The Bible is a book you can easily read from cover to cover and then stick in your pocket. The amount of books you would have to read to get the mind of the Church is endless. And who has that time? Time to ferret out the meaning or reconcile the many contradictions. Yes there are contradictions in the Fathers.
This book is full of contradictions in the Fathers and how to reconcile them
This is not to say, "It's too hard." Rather it's to say that it is too ridiculous to expect anyone to be familiar with the Fathers before he reads or can even understand the scriptures. Jay may have spent 15 years immersed in his library but he is also a single man with much time on his hands who has had professional theological training as he tells us he went to seminary for a few years.
Then there's the issue of prooftexting which Jay specifically cites as being labelled Protestant. Let's take one verse. If I want to tell a person how to be saved I would quote John 3:16. Simple right? No. What does kosmos mean in this verse? The whole world or only a particular few in the world? What does love mean? What about works? Monergistic or synergistic believing? Too many divisive theological issues in just that one verse!
Instead of quoting the plain words of Christ the Orthodox would have one tell a seeker of salvation what the "mind of the Church is" because the words of Christ are not so plain after all. Take the following verse: "This is my body." Pretty plain and clear right! If you said yes then you should read up on the Colloquy of Marburg and the Western disputes on the eucharist during the middle ages.
Is it any wonder that the Orthodox, especially Protestant converts, would shun prooftexting? Prooftexting is a wholly Protestant endeavour so it should be no surprise to Jay that he is called a Protestant when he prooftexts.
There are a lot of issues here involved with the questions I have raised. None of which I wish to get into because they are side roads to my main question which is: Why do some Orthodox think Jay's Orthodox view of scripture is not Orthodox? If we can solve that mystery or at least propose valid hypotheses which research would support I think we will be on the right track.
To really get into the meat of this subject and prove any hypothesis beyond a shadow of a doubt it would be helpful to trace the development of the doctrine and use of scripture from the Church Fathers to the Synod of Jerusalem and then from the Synod of Jerusalem to today. Such a survey is beyond my ken.
Now we are here to call to mind, that when God made his promise, it was unto the whole stock of
Abraham; not that all were partakers of the promise of salvation, but that God had certain regard and bare
a special favor unto all that house, and unto them which were to issue from it, accordingly also as we see
how he says: As concerning Ismael, I have heard thee. And in very deed, it was not for naught that God
commanded that Ismael should be circumcised. We know that circumcision imports: it is a sign of the
favor of God. Now seeing it was given unto Ismael, it is great reason that he should approach more near
unto God than the Painims which were altogether defiled, and which had no sign that God loved them, I
say no particular sign.For in as much as he makes his sun to shine upon the good and upon the wicked,
and in that he nourishes the whole world; thereby he proves himself a father towards all.
In this sermon Calvin references Matthew 5:45 and calls God a father towards all. It is his providential goodness in causing the sun to shine upon the wicked which proves his fatherliness towards all men and not just the elect. When Calvin says that the pagans had no particular sign that God loved them and then refers to his nourishment of the world as proof that he is a father to all the inference is that this nourishment of the world, the sunshine and the rain, indicates a general sign of God's love even to them.
Matthew 5:45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Here is Calvin's commentary on Matthew 5:45 in full:
45.That ye may be the children of your Father who is in heaven. When he expressly declares, that no man will be a child of God, unless he loves those who hate him, who shall dare to say, that we are not bound to observe this doctrine? The statement amounts to this, “Whoever shall wish to be accounted a Christian, let him love his enemies.” It is truly horrible and monstrous, that the world should have been covered with such thick darkness, for three or four centuries, as not to see that it is an express command, and that every one who neglects it is struck out of the number of the children of God.
It ought to be observed that, when the example of God is held out for our imitation, this does not imply, that it would be becoming in us to do whatever God does. He frequently punishes the wicked, and drives the wicked out of the world. In this respect, he does not desire us to imitate him: for the judgment of the world, which is his prerogative, does not belong to us. But it is his will, that we should imitate his fatherly goodness and liberality. This was perceived, not only by heathen philosophers, but by some wicked despisers of godliness, who have made this open confession, that in nothing do men resemble God more than in doing good. In short, Christ assures us, that this will be a mark of our adoption, if we are kind to the unthankful and evil. And yet you are not to understand, that our liberality makes us the children of God: but the same Spirit, who is the witness, (Romans 8:16,) earnest, (Ephesians 1:14,) and seal, (Ephesians 4:30,) of our free adoption, corrects the wicked affections of the flesh, which are opposed to charity. Christ therefore proves from the effect, that none are the children of God, but those who resemble him in gentleness and kindness.
Luke says, and you shall be the children of the Highest. Not that any man acquires this honor for himself, or begins to be a child of God, when he loves his enemies; but because, when it is intended to excite us to do what is right, Scripture frequently employs this manner of speaking, and represents as a reward the free gifts of God. The reason is, he looks at the design of our calling, which is, that, in consequence of the likeness of God having been formed anew in us, we may live a devout and holy life. He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. He quotes two instances of the divine kindness toward us, which are not only well known to us, but common to all: and this very participation excites us the more powerfully to act in a similar manner towards each other, though, by a synecdoche, he includes a vast number of other favors.
Calvin here refers to the rising of the sun and the sending of the rain as divine kindness common to all. Compare Calvin's gloss on Mathew 5:45 with that of Protestant Reformed Minister and Seminary Professor David J. Engelsma's gloss on the sister verse Luke 6:35 which verse Calvin references in his commentary.
Luke 6:35: But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
From "Common Grace Revisited."
In loving our enemies, we reflect the character of our Father. Like Father, like children. For God is kind to unthankful and evil people. He is not kind to all unthankful and evil
people. Nor does Luke 6:35 say this.But He is kind to people
who are unthankful and evil. These are the elect in Christ,
“the children of the Highest,” who now are called and privileged to show the marvelous goodness of their heavenly Father in their own attitude and behavior toward their enemies.
We were the unthankful and evil when in kindness He set
His love upon us in the eternal decree of election.
We were the unthankful and evil when in kindness He gave
up His own Son for us in the redeeming death of the cross.
We were the unthankful and evil when in kindness He
translated us by the regenerating Spirit into the kingdom of His dear Son.
And still we are the unthankful and evil when daily, in kindness, He brings us to repentance, forgives our sins, preserves
us in the faith, and shows us a fatherly face in Jesus Christ. For, although by His grace we are also thankful and holy, we have
only a very small beginning of this thankfulness and holiness.
How unthankful we are for the love of God to us in Jesus
Christ! And this is evil! This is a great evil!
What a difference in interpretation. Calvin calls God a father to all and declares his acts of sending the rain and causing the sun to rise are divine kindnesses towards all while Engelsma writes that these kindnesses are only towards the elect. Engelsma gives the words of Christ in this passage a slant which better fits the PRCA's sectarian presupposition that God has absolutely no dealings with the reprobate of any kind except wrath to the uttermost. For Calvin the just and unjust is a metonymy for all men. For Engelsma the unthankful and evil, which would correspond to the unjust of Matthew 5:45, are only the elect. Even after conversion, salvation, being grafted into Christ, regeneration, and being made a new creature in Christ the elect remain unthankful and evil. For Calvin this sending of sunshine and rain indicates a general love of God to even the pagans. For Engelsma such a general love is impossible since God only loves the elect.
This is just one more place where it is more than obvious that Calvin does not agree with the Protestant Reformed Church's rejection of common grace and that they do not stand in his shoes.
Claim 17 is the final claim of the atonement school to be critiqued in this series. This critique can be found in part 68 of Paul Vendredi's atonement series podcast.
Claim 17: “The death of Christ ransoms mankind from the wrath of God thereby paying in full for all the sins of mankind past present and future. Nothing at all is required on man's part.”
For ease of discussion this claim is broken down into three parts.
Part 1: The ransom.
There is no getting around this one. The Bible is clear that the death of Christ is a ransom.
Mark 10:45: For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Matthew 20:28: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
I Timothy 2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
I Timothy 2:6: Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
The problem is to whom was Christ a ransom?
Ephesians 5:25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Romans 8:32: He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
I Corinthians 7:23: Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
These passages conflict on whether Christ gives himself or whether the Father hands him over. The identity of the hostage taker is not stated at all and any attempt to prove who it is is pure speculation.
Before we move on let's take a closer look at these three specific passages. To whom did Christ give himself, to whom is Christ delivered up, and what was the price he was bought with and from whom was he bought?
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?
Luke 24:7: Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
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:
Christ gave, or offered, himself up to God, he was delivered into the hands of men to die, and the price we are bought with is Christ's blood which he offers up to God.
What is difficult is identifying to whom a ransom is paid when the Bible says Christ was a ransom. There are only three candidates: death, the devil, or God. The Church Fathers are not in harmony on this matter.
Gregory of Nyssa taught the ransom to the devil theory. Today, outside of word of faith movement, this is repudiated. Mr. Vendredi does not offer any citations from Gregory or give much of an explanation as to why this is wrong.
Basil of Caesarea taught the ransom to death theory. This teaching is found in his liturgy.
"He gave Himself as ransom to death in which we were held captive"
The problem here is that death is not a person but is a condition and an abstraction. Holding to this theory requires one to base an important part of theology on the hypostatisation of an abstraction. In Basil'sl liturgy death is used figuratively.
Mr. Vendredi fails to exegete any texts. And there are plenty of texts telling us that Christ was delivered up to sinful men to be put to death. Because the reason Christ is delivered to sinful men is to be put to death it is not out of place to say that Christ is delivered up to death.
Matthew 27:2: And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. Matthew 27:18: For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. Matthew 27:26: ¶Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Luke 9:44: Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. Luke 18:32: For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: Luke 24:20: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. John 19:16: Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. Acts 3:13: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. Romans 4:25: Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Romans 8:32: He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
The final candidate to receive the ransom payment of Christ's death is God. Cyril of Jerusalem teaches this in his 13th catechetical lecture. Mr. Vendredi does not give a direct citation so one is left to guess. Is it this?
2. And wonder not that the whole world was ransomed; for it was no mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God, who died on its behalf. Moreover one man's sin, even Adam's, had power to bring death to the world; but if by the trespass of the one death reigned over the world, how shall not life much rather reign by the righteousness of the OneRomans 5:17-18? And if because of the tree of food they were then cast out of paradise, shall not believers now more easily enter into paradise because of the Tree of Jesus? If the first man formed out of the earth brought in universal death, shall not He who formed him out of the earth bring in eternal life, being Himself the Life? If Phinees, when he waxed zealous and slewthe evil-doer, staved the wrath of God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but gave up Himself for a ransom1 Timothy 2:6, put away the wrath which is against mankind?
The Church Fathers are all wrong. Everyone is wrong because they are taking the word ransom at face value and in a woodenly literal way. Although the Greek word "lutron" is properly translated "ransom" which according to Strong's means:
the Bible is not using the word according to its lexical definition. It is using a stipulative definition.
A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently-existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. Because of this, a stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect"; it can only differ from other definitions, but it can be useful for its intended purpose.
Ransom really means rescue. And now we know that we cannot trust our Bible at face value. We have to think poetically.
Christ is not a ransom. He is the rescue from our sate of sinfulness and its consequences.
But isn't a ransom also a rescue? When Mel Gibson ransoms his son isn't he also rescuing him?
And what about the part of the definition that reads, "the sacrifice by which expiation is offered; an offering of expiation?" Why can't ransom mean expiation? Why does ransom have to mean rescue? Mr. Vendredi offers no discussion of these objections. There is only assertion and no exegetical work at all except of the most surface kind. "God did not make a payment to the Egyptians when he ransomed them from Egypt."
Exodus 6:6: Go, speak to the children of Israel, saying, I the Lord; and I will lead you forth from the tyranny of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from bondage, and I will ransom you with a high arm, and great judgment.
LXX
Parts 2 and 3 can be easily combined. "Christ paid for the sins of the whole world and now there is nothing required on man's part." Christ paying for the sins of the whole world is dismissed by bringing up hell. Mr. Vendredi then tells us that the way out of this objection is limited atonement, which he most vehemently rejects.
John 12:32: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
II Peter 3:9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I Timothy 2:4: Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
See!? These verses teach that God wants ALL MEN to be saved. Thus limited atonement is "a crock of crap."
Mr. Vendredi is engaging in the same wooden literalism of which he accuses the atonement school. Does "All" really mean each and every single man that ever lived or will live without exception? Even Judas and Pharaoh? Even R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur?
This discussion is about penal substitution, not limited atonement, so there will be no arguments here to defend or explain this doctrine. Suffice it to say there are books, so many books, written on the subject. Try "The Death of Death" by John Owen for starters.
Finally we end with what Mr. Vendredi calls the worst part of claim 17 which is the part that goes “nothing at all is required from man.” There is no time to delve into a discussion of sola fide so I end with the words of Paul Vendredi.
“Christ’s work on the cross sets in place some kind of Barack Obama style welfare program. Christ does all the work of salvation while we just sit on our fannies eating bon-bons and watching Oprah. It is unbiblical to claim the Christ’s death on the cross is all one needs for salvation.”
"Sola fide is the biggest of many flimflams coming out of the reformation. Christ's death on the cross makes salvation available to you."
“When Christ says immedialtey before his death, "It is finished," he does not mean the work of salvation is finished. It is finished means "my task is finished." That is his task of assuming the entirety of the human nature. Having already assumed the human mind and soul, body, and will and nature he was now assuming the final aspect of the fallen human condition: death.”
Conclusion
At the beginning, in Book One, I stated that I would not be quoting Mr. Vendredi. This has turned out to be impossible and I have quoted him many times.
Over the course of these 17 arguments and 11 podcasts Paul Vendredi has shown a lack of sound logical argumentation and an astonishingly wilful ignorance of some of the most basic Bible stories, and passages. Most notably the story in Genesis 22. He has also resorted to ridicule and reductio ad absurdum so many times that it is obvious he does not care to represent the atonement school accurately or deal with their arguments properly. He may counter by saying that he has done that very thing in the preceding podcasts while I have focused here only on 11 podcasts and that it is necessary to listen to the previous 57 podcasts. The objection is fair and not without merit. Nevertheless since these 11 podcasts are the epitome of his arguments against penal substitution and since they contain much ridicule, unsound logic, and ignorance and are found wanting, my charge remains.
Claims 15 and 16 are discussed in part 67 of Mr. Vendredi's atonement series.
Claim 15: “His eyes too holy to look upon sin, God judges Christ, turns His back on Christ, and drives Christ out of the godhead.”
Mr. Vendredi, as always, breaks this claim down into smaller bits.
Part 1: “His eyes to holy to look upon sin god judges the crucified Christ.”
This makes no sense because Christ was not guilty of sin. How can God judge Christ if he is not guilty of sin?
The answer is because Christ takes our sin upon him and becomes a curse and bears the penalty for sin not that he is actually guilty of sin or a sinner. The wages of sin is death. Christ suffers and dies on the cross while bearing our sins. But this has been dealt with previously and there is no need to go further.
Part 2: "God turns his back on Christ."
This is not true at all because Jesus testifies otherwise.
John 8:28: Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
John 8:29: And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
John 16:32: Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
The oft quoted cry of Christ:
Matthew 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
is really just a literary device Christ was using to alert his hearers that he meant to whole of Psalm 22 and not merely the opening line. It would be incorrect to divorce the introduction to Psalm 22 from the rest of it. When one only reads the first line one gets a suffering servant abandoned by the Father. when one reads the entire Psalm one gets a suffering servant still in communion with the Father.
Besides this Jesus quotes Psalm 31:5.
Luke 23:46: ¶And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
Good objections all and as this is not a defense of penal substation but a display of the paucity of Mr. Vendredi's arguments I will only bring up one counter-argument which he overlooks.
When Christ reads from Isaiah in Luke 4 he only reads half the passage.
Luke 4:17: And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luke 4:18: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luke 4:19: To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
The whole of the passage in Isaiah is as follows:
Isaiah 61:1: The Spirit of the Lord GODis upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
Isaiah 61:2: To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Isaiah 61:3: To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.
Actually there is more to it. But we see Christ only quoting the first part and then sitting down and declaring:
Luke 4:21: And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
How can this be when he neglected to read the whole passage? How can one part be fulfilled now and the other part not be fulfilled now? I would suggest the same interpretation with Psalm 22. Christ's being abandoned by the Father is fulfilled in his hour of despair on the cross. Later with the resurrection and the spreading of the Gospel the latter half of the Psalm is fulfilled.
Part 3 of this claim says: "Christ is driven out of the godhead."
Mr. Vendredi rightly derides this as blasphemous. The Father and the Son are one undiminished unity. The Father does not change. The Son does not change. Therefore there is never a time when the Father and the Son are not one undivided unity. Therefore the Son could never not be a part of the godhead.
Claim 16 “As the perfect unblemished offering Christ fulfils and obviates the entire Old Testament sacrificial system once and for all.”
In actual fact the only part of the sacrificial system the Christ fulfils is the Passover lamb. All the other sacrifices serve either as anti-Egyptian iconoclasm, punishment of the Aaronic priests, or punishment of the rank and file isrealite.
John 1:29: ¶The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 1:36: And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
John 19:14: And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
I Corinthians 5:7: Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Clearly Christ full fills the sacrifice of the Passover the purpose of which is to destroy Satan.
Exodus 12:12: For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
Previously Mr. Vendredi has said that the primary purpose of the Passover sacrifice was to destroy the creator gods of Egypt. It was iconoclastic. At no point then, which was discussed in part 61, did Mr. Vendredi bring up Christ as being prefigured in the Passover. So why is he brining Christ into the picture now? He is contradicting himself.
The second part of this critique of claim 16 is a long argument attempting to prove that Christ cannot be the scapegoat and that he also cannot symbolise any of the other sacrifices. Christ is a lamb, not a goat. There is a ram sacrificed on the day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, but a ram is an adult lamb and Mr. Vendredi is not aware of Christ ever being likened to a ram. This is both Biblical and taxonomical illiteracy which afflicts even big name Christian radio personalities.
It would seem that Athanasisus is also afflicted with the same Biblical and taxonomical illiteracy.
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.
If Mr. Vendredi had read the story in Genesis 22 aright then he would not be making such an egregious mistake as saying Christ is never likened to a ram.
Next we are told that the atonement school wrongly identifies Christ with every animal sacrificed by the Aaronic priests. In the Old Testamentthere are references to goats, bullocks, calves, rams, pigeons and turtledoves, and even flour as being sin offerings. The New Testament nowhere likens Christ to a goat, a bullock, a pigeon, a turtledove, a ram, a calf, or a handful of flour. The only sacrificial animal to which the New Testament likens Christ is a lamb.
First of all the iconogprahy and tradition of the Church arrests Mr. Vendredi's nonsense right in its tracks. The Gospel of Luke and Luke the Evangelist but sometimes one of the other Gospels and Evangelists have always been represented as a calf or bull or ox.
Luke the Evangelist, the author of thethird gospelaccount (and theActs of the Apostles), is symbolized by a wingedoxor bull – a figure of sacrifice, service and strength. Luke's account begins with the duties ofZachariasin the temple; it represents Jesus'sacrificein His Passion and Crucifixion, as well as Christ being Highpriest(this also representsMary's obedience). The ox signifies that Christians should be prepared to sacrifice themselves in following Christ.
The association of the four living creatures with the four evangelists originated with Irenaeus in the 2nd century. The interpretation of each creature has varied through church history. The most common interpretation, first laid out by Victorinus and adopted by Jerome, St Gregory, and the Book of Kells is that the man is Matthew, the lion Mark, the ox Luke, and the eagle John. The creatures of the tetramorph, just like the four gospels of the Evangelists, represent four facets of Christ.
Secondly, and most importantly, Mr. Vendredi's arguments are dismantled in the book of Hebrews, particularly in chapter 9. It would be too much to quote the entirety of Hebrews 9. So let's just quote a few passages.
Hebrews 9:6: Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
Hebrews 9:7: But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Hebrews 9:8: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Hebrews 9:9: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Hebrews 9:10: Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Hebrews 9:11: But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
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?
Just two chapters back Christ is called a priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisidec. Yet here we see the author of Hebrews comparing Christ and his work to that of thehigh priest of the Aaronic priesthood on the day of atonement, Yom Kippur. As Aaron entered in once a year with the blood of bulls and goats, Christ enters once into the holy place and offers his own blood. This holy place is heaven.
Hebrews 9:24: For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
It is in Hebrews 9 and 10 that Christ is compared to being a goat, bullock, and ram. Hebrews 13 also gives us this comparison of Christ with animals being sacrificed without the gate.
Hebrews 13:11: For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
Hebrews 13:12: Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Hebrews 13:13: Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
This reference to an animal being slain without the camp is to the red heifer of Numbers 19.
Numbers 19:1: And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
Numbers 19:2: This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke:
Numbers 19:3: And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may bring her forth without the camp, and one shall slay her before his face:
The book of Hebrews explains how the entire sacrificial system of the Old Testament is fulfilled in light of the sacrifice of Christ. How Mr. Vendredi misses this entirely is anyone's guess. If he wants to prove that the sacrifice of Christ does not fulfil the entire sacrificial system of the Old Testament then he will have to stop taking a wooden literal approach, like he accuses so many of doing, by telling us that Christ is the lamb and not the kid of God and instead properly exegete the book of Hebrews especially chapter 9. What the death and resurrection of Christ accomplishes and fulfils is so much larger and manifold then Mr. Vendredi would have us believe.
