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"
https://www.goarch.org/-/the-divine-liturgy-of-saint-basil-the-great
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 One Romans 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 ransom 1 Timothy 2:6, put away the wrath which is against mankind?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310113.htm
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:
 |
| http://biblehub.com/greek/3083.htm |
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.
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.
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.
Finis
No comments:
Post a Comment