Contra Paul Vendredi Book 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Jesus says this:

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

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

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

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

Which is reconciled in Colossians.

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

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

Baptism is thus a metaphorical circumcision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

It's also unbiblical because of this verse:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Mr. Vendredi not realise how serious sin is?

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

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

Proceed to Book 3