Contra Paul Vendredi Book 7

Continuing with our critique of Paul Vendredi's critique of the arguments for penal substitution we now come to claims 8 -11 which can be found in the video below.

Claim 8: "God could have canceled mankind's debt simply by willing it.”

Mr. Vendredi agrees with this statement. God did not have to become incarnate and die on a cross in order for man to be redeemed. God could have snapped his fingers and declared mankind redeemed.  God could have sent Benny Hinn to flap his coat at us and redeem us that way. God can do whatever he wants. 

Psalms 135:6: Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.

Let's stop here and take notice of this statement. Can God do whatever he wants? That is not such an easy question to answer and has been a matter of heated debate amongst theologians for a long time. To declare God can do whatever he wants must be qualified and placed within the context of God himself. God does whatsoever he pleases but he is only pleased with acts which are in accordance with his nature. Then there's the issue of what God can do and what he has actually done.

Roughly, his “absolute” power referred to God’s “unrestrained” power, the entire space of possibilities, he could have caused Napoleaon to win the Battle of the Waterloo, or create unicorns, or command that all of us must eat rice on every thursday, etc. His “ordained” power on the other hand referred to what God did in fact do or “ordain” in this world, he called Moses to be a Prophet, he made the grass green, commanded that we should love our neighbours as ourselves, etc.

https://rationalityofaith.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/the-dialectic-between-the-absolute-and-ordained-power-of-god-or-how-god-cheats-in-answering-prayers/

Keep this in mind because we will return to this concept.

Mr. Vendredi agrees that God did not have to become incarnate but he disagrees with WHY God became incarnate. He believes God became incarnate out of compassion for fallen humanity. He offers no explanation for what this means

The atonement school however believes God became incarnate because "God is stricly just. Winking at a sin, passing over a sin, or leaving any sin unpunished would derogate from God’s holiness and justice.  Therefore God cannot forgive a sin without firs punishing the sinner.” This is claim 9 and can be broken down into two parts.

1. God cannot cancel mankind's debt because God is strictly just.

This claim is summarily dismissed by saying "mankind does not owe a debt to anyone or anything because no one can steal from God so no one can owe God a debt."

Does Paul Vendredi pray the Lord's prayer?

Matthew 6:12: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

Luke 11:4: And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Our sins are our debts to God.

God is not strictly just. He is also merciful.

John 8:11: She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

If God is strictly just then He would have consented to the stoning of this woman caught in adultery. Likewise God would not have pardoned David and Bathsheba for their sins if He is strictly just.

II Samuel 12:13: And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Rather than look in depth at these stories Mr. Vendredi is content to dwell on the surface. To forgive the woman caught in adultery is an act of mercy and justice. It is merciful because he forgives her sin.  It is just because the law demands the death of both the adulterous man and woman. 

Deuteronomy 22:22: ¶If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

The man was not there. Only the woman had been brought. Was the testimony of these men even trustworthy? Jesus does not negate or override the law in this passage. He instead reveals the sin in the hearts of all her accusers and, being ashamed, they all leave. With no accusers it would be highly unjust to execute punishment on this woman.

As for David, this is a man greatly beloved by God and through whom the Messiah would come.  Jesus Christ descends through the line of Bathsheba. Indeed God was very merciful to David. But take a look at the some more of this passage.

II Samuel 12:9: Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 

II Samuel 12:10: Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. 

II Samuel 12:11: Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 

II Samuel 12:12: For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 

II Samuel 12:13: And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 

II Samuel 12:14: Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

If that is not temporal punishment then I don't know what is. This is another passage that Mr. Vendredi neglected to discuss when he denied temporal punishment. What you have in these verses are a manifestation of God's mercy and his justice.  He does not let the sin go unpunished but the sinner has his sins put away. David does not die but his son dies and so do a lot of other people as a result of the sword never departing from his house.

2. Leaving any sin unpunished would derogate from God's holiness and justice therefore God cannot forgive a sin without first punishing the sinner.

This is a piece of Biblical illiteracy.

Luke 7:41: There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 

Luke 7:42: And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? 

Luke 7:43: Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.

See the creditor simply forgives without first collecting his debt from another source.

Matthew 18:27: Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

Here again the debt is forgiven without having to recoup the debt from somewhere else.

Luke 15:20: And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

Even with the prodigal son we see that the debt is forgiven freely. The son is not forced to work as a hireling to pay off the debt.

So much for claim 9.

Not really. Mr. Vendredi seems to forget that these are all parables and that they are to illustrate a point.  They are not to be taken literally.  Whatever these parables mean Christ still died on the cross in our place taking our sins upon him.  He became sin.  He became a curse.  He laid down his life for us. We are reconciled to God through Christ. No death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, no reconciliation.

II Corinthians 5:21: For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Galatians 3:13: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

None of these parables mentions anything about the need for reconciliation to God through a mediator dying and rising again. Mr. Vendredi's explanation of these parables, that God can freely forgive sin without punishing a sinner, does not take into account the very reality that we are redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ who died in our stead.  All of this merits a further discussion which Mr. Vendredi does not offer.

Claim 10: “The atoning sacrifice must die by crucifixion so that the atonement can mirror the fall of Adam at a tree so that the atonement can be as painful as possible since the fall was as painless as possible and so that the sacrificial victim can be cursed by God."

This claim is so long that it's best to break it down.

1. “Christ must die on a tree so that that atonement can mirror the fall of Adam at a tree.”

This is true and is testified by commentators throughout church history.

The problem is that the atonement school says Christ's death must be as painful as possible because the fall was painless. The atonement must be painless and easy if the mirror image is to work.

It does not follow that the atonement must be as painful as possible. The real reason the atonement school holds this position is because penal substitution is really just torture porn for angry Augustinians.  

It seems that Mr. Vendredi just cannot help himself. He must always go for the low blow. Torture porn? Seriously? I guess all those hymns about the cross and the blood of Christ are just so much torture porn.

"Nothing But the Blood"
"Are You Washed in the Blood"
"At the Cross"
"The Old Rugged Cross"
"There is a Fountain"
"There is Power in the Blood"
"When I Survey the Wondrous Cross"
"The Blood Will Never Lose Its Power"
"Alas! and Did My Saviour Bleed?"

What are these but the anthems of angry Augustinians revelling gleefully in the torture of Christ?

Mr. Vendredi may not like it but there are many who find comfort in the sufferings of Christ. They find comfort in the fact that Christ suffered the punishment they deserved. Throughout Church history millions of Christians have found solace in meditating upon the stations of the cross. For him to denigrate these people as "angry Augustinians" or to say this is torture porn is foolishness and shows he does not care to accurately represent his opponents and does not care about what they really teach and believe.

2. “Christ must die by crucifixion so he can be cursed by God in accordance with Deuteronomy”

This is another claim which receives Mr. Vendredi's seal of approval. 

Though he does disagree with the whole Christ becoming a curse thing.

Christ's blood HAS to be shed in order for mankind to be saved. The blood MUST be shed by crucifixion. Why?

1. A public death proclaims his divinity via the resurrection by precluding any notion that he faked his death. 

2. Hanging in the air destroys the power of Satan who is the prince of the air. 

3. It has iconic significance.

Here Mr. Vendredi says God MUST do something where as previously he said God can do whatever he wants. So which is it?  Is God bound by necessity or is he free to do what he wishes?

No discussion. Maybe he thinks no one will notice this contradiction? This is where the distinction between God's absolute power (he can do anything) in contrast to his ordained power (what God has actually done) comes into play.  Did God really shed his blood on the cross out of necessity? Or did he do it absolutely freely?  If he was bound by necessity then claim 8 is wrong. If claim 8 is not wrong then this claim is wrong. 

This kind of discussion is not beyond the scope of a discussion about the atonement. It is right in the claims being made. Yet Mr. Vendredi does not even touch it. Not even a glance.

Claim 11: "Because its debt is an infinite debt owned to an infinite being mankind cannot satisfactorily pay its debt. The only commodity valuable enough to recompense God for his stolen honour, to appease his wrath against sin, and to render him propitious is the shed blood of a god-man."

This claim is false because man does not owe God a debt and our sins do not affect God. They affect ourselves.

Proverbs 5:22: ¶His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. 

Jeremiah 2:19: Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts. 

Jeremiah 7:19: Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

Of course men's sins affect themselves. All men are ensnared by their own wickedness. So what? None of those verses proves what Mr. Vendredi say they prove, that our sins do not affect God. In fact let's quote the verse following Jeremiah 7:19.

Jeremiah 7:20: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.

They provoke themselves to anger yet God is still angry and will pour out his fury. 

 

Mr. Vendredi pulls out three verses which he thinks prove our sins do not affect God in anyway. Three! Here are six verses that prove 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.

Once more Mr. Vendredi does not wish to interact with certain scriptures which disprove his point.

He ends by telling us that ascribing wrath to God is merely anthropopahism designed to scare people into doing what's right for them. The Bible had to be written in such a way that it could be understood by all people in all eras. So its written to appeal to the lowest cognitive level, that of fear. Any real talk of the wrath of God is misplaced literalism.

So God is just faking us out?  Is God lying to us? What is going on exactly when God says he will pour out his wrath on the unrighteous and that he hates sinners? Mr. Vendredi does not go into any detail. He just repeats ad infinitum, hyperbole, anthropopaphism, anthropomorphism; hyperbole, anthropopaphism, anthropomorphism; hyperbole, anthropopaphism, anthropomorphism; hyperbole, anthropopaphism, anthropomorphism..........

Proceed to Book 8