Contra Paul Vendredi Book 1

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

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

Ready?  Here we go!

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

Claim 1 concerns orginal sin.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there's this verse:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet without sin.

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

And verses that speak about the wickedness of man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Point 1

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

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

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

 Point 2

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

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

Then he presumes to dismantle another prooftext of total depravity,

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

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

Noah 

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

Abel

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

Elisabeth and Zacharias

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

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

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

Now wait a minute.  Hold the phone there buddy.

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

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

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

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

Romans 3:11a: There is none that understandeth

"Oh really?", says Mr. Venderdi.

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

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

 Boo-yah!  Take that atonement school folks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hulk Hogan's finishing move

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

Hulk Hogan's finished

Proceed to Book 2