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.
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.
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.
Could he be more arrogant and childish? Whoever heard of an irreverent Christian ministry?
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment