Paul Vendredi offers the strongest argument yet against penal subsititution during the second half of his critique of claim 12. This will be a good time to restate that this critique of Mr. Vendredi's critique is not a defence of penal substitution per se. The whole purpose is to show the lacking of Mr. Vendredi's reasonings and arguments. Claim 12 is discussed in the video below which is part 65.
Claim 12: “The son of God becomes incarnate so that his human nature can suffer the infinite penalty as our substitute. Thereby God can satisfy his own wrath.”
This claim has three concepts each of which will be dealt with individually. Those concepts are: substitution, infinite punishment, and God quenching his own wrath.
1. Substitution
The prooftext for substitution is 1 Peter 3:18
I Peter 3:18: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
That this verse and others like it prove substitution is dismissed by the threefold alliterative device Mr. Vendredi calls "the double 'S' trio"; Substitution Silliness, Substitution Psychosis, and Substitution Superimposition.
A. Substitution Silliness.
The atonement school teaches man has offended God but cannot make amends therefore God has to collect amends from some other source. Only then he can be propitious enough to forgive.
This is stupid and biblically illiterate.
Nice argument there Mr. Vendredi.
He cites Ephesians to prove how silly subsititution is.
Ephesians 4:32: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
Christians are told to forgive as God forgave us in Christ but God had to kill his Son in order to forgive us. To imitate this means if you insult Steve, Steve cannot forgive you unless he first punches his friend Bill. Only then can Steve forgive you.
Mr. Vendredi can't even get his parallel silliness correct. Steve would actually have to kill Bill and then resurrect him for his analogy to work. But it doesn't work either way and Mr. Vendredi ignores the first part of the verse about being kind and tenderhearted to one another. He also forgets the nature of our forgiveness in Chirst which is that it is free and gracious.
Ephesians 1:7: In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Romans 3:24: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
B. Substitution Psychosis
This is one of the oddest critiques since what Mr. Vendredi is telling us here is that because theologians say we need an atonement to cover our guilt that means these men are psychotic, guilt-wracked creatures. Theology is supposed to come from the Bible not from human psychosis.
Does Mr. Vendredi really deny that all men stand guilty before God?
Romans 3:19: Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
C. Substitution Superimposition
The atonement school superimposes their psychoses onto God and we get a divine judge having a sense of justice inferior to that of the American legal system. In that legal system reasonable doubt means the jury must acquit. That is because there is a preference to acquit the guilty rather than convict the innocent.
But in the penal substitution schema God knowingly kills the innocent in place of the guilty. This makes God psychotic. The Bible tells us we must be like God.
I Peter 1:15: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
I Peter 1:16: Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
If God is the kind of judge who knowingly kills the innocent in place of the guilty then we should imitate that by becoming pro-abortion. Innocent rape babies are killed via abortion while guilty rapists go free. Calvinist theology mitigates against a pro-life stance.
God the Father does not murder or kill Jesus Christ simply as an innocent party. Jesus Christ willingly lays down his life for his sheep as an innocent and willing victim.
John 10:14: I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
John 10:15: As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
John 10:16: And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
John 10:17: Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
John 10:18: No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
John 15:12: This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
John 15:13: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Hebrews 7:27: Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
I John 3:16: Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
And he takes on their sin.
I Peter 2:21: For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
I Peter 2:22: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
I Peter 2:23: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
I Peter 2:24: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
And the Father sets forth Christ commanding us to believe on him.
Matthew 17:5: While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Mark 9:7: And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Luke 9:35: And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Romans 3:25: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
We are to be like God not in imitating what he has done exactly but in being loving towards one another just as he loved us. Even to the point of laying our lives down one for another. Following Christ does not mean performing all the miracles he did. Imitating God does not mean creating a whole universe ex-nihilo. The imitation of Christ and of God is moral not physical and exact.
It does not follow that because God accepts the sacrifice of Christ that we must be pro-abortion. First of all the analogy does not work. Rape babies are not sacrificed in place of the rapist. Nor are they resurrected. Second of all abortion is murder and the death of Christ was not a murder.
Mr. Vendredi conclues his critique of substitution superimposition by referring to Moses offering himself to God instead of the Israelites.
Exodus 32:31: And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
Exodus 32:32: Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin―; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
Exodus 32:33: And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
See God does not accept Moses as a substitution for the Israelites thus one person cannot make atonement as a substitute for another.
The problem with all the critiques so far is that Mr. Vendredi fails to do any exegesis of Bible texts. His arguments amount to name calling, reductio ad absurdums, non sequiturs, and complete ignorance of what the Bible says especially in the case of guilt. Mr. Vendredi is correct to say that theology is supposed to come from the Bible and not from our psychoses. If only he had stuck with the Bible his theology might be sounder.
Now we come to two of the strongest critiques of penal substitution. The claims being critiqued are that Christ satisfies an infinite punishment and placates the wrath of God. Mr. Vendredi deals with these separately but they will be combined here because they go hand-in-hand.
Mr. Vendredi deals with each of these arguments the same way: ridicule.
How can the death of a finite human nature satisfy an infinite offence? The heresies of Eutychianism or Monophysitism are the only choices to answer this difficult question. He plays an audio clip of R.C. Sproul being asked this question and Sproul rambles on and does not answer the question. Next he plays an audio clip of Paul Washer being asked the same question and avoiding it altogether while starting to cry.
Likewise how does the death of one divine person satisfy the other divine person when the two are in perfect accord? If the Father has wrath against mankind then the Son would have the same wrath. If the Father's wrath has to be appeased by innocent blood then the Son's wrath would have to be appeased by innocent blood. Yet the atonement school says God is implacably furious while Jesus agrees to absorb his wrath in our place. This is divine schizophrenia.
He then plays two audio clips by Sproul showing he acknowledges and dismisses this problem and then contradicts himself.
Also he mocks Sproul for saying, "Briefly," before launching into a three minute rambling answer. Mr. Vendredi relates the story of he and his reader and how they were recording the reading of a letter of Athanasius who also says, "Briefly," before composing a very long missive. And ha ha ha ha ha ha! It's just so funny let's all have a laugh please!
Mr. Vendredi wastes everyone's time here. It's understandable he wants to refer to contemporary teachers since he has a contemporary audience. That is the weakness of this whole series. He deals only with contemporary teachers some of whom are out and out heretics like Benny Hinn. He does not deal with Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Edwards, Witsius, Bavinck, Hodge, Dabney, Owen, or any of the real big guns of Protestantism. He does not even refer to the Confessions when attempting to represent Protestant theology. He did read a few sections from Edwards and Calvin and Dort but only as ridicule not to engage with their theology.
How does a finite human nature satisfy an infinite debt? How about a serious answer from the past?
It is further objected, that Christ satisfied fully, but not by divine acceptation only: because he suffered but for a time, whereas we deserve eternally.
The fourth answer is more full and free from exception, that Christ suffered but for a time, because it was impossible he should be held under the sorrows of death, Acts 2:24. The wicked suffer eternally, because they being cast under the curse, they cannot deliver themselves, and justice will not set them free: but his sufferings did overcome, and delivered himself, so that his sufferings continued for a time. In kind his sufferings were the same with those, which in us should have continued forever, although they did not continue: wherefore? because they had an end not of themselves, or their own nature, but of the power of Christ. He overcame these punishments which had been altogether eternal, if he could not have overcome.
John Ball, http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=12624
And:
It is not necessary that Christ should undergo precisely the same punishment which the damned shall suffer.
XV. I know not whether that stubbornness of style wherein they delight in explaining the sufferings of Christ, arises from this, that they think he was so substituted for sinners that he behooved to undergo precisely the same punishment, which was otherwise due to our sins, and which the damned shall suffer in their own persons. Which opinion Owen defends at large in his Prolegomena to the Hebrews, vol. 2. page 80, &c. I profess truly that I agree with those Divines, who believe that the Father demanded from the Son a sufficient ransom indeed, and worthy of his injured majesty; yet so, that all clemency was not excluded, nor was every thing found in Christ’s sufferings, which shall be found in the most righteous punishment of the reprobates. For from his untainted holiness, from the covenant between him and the Father, finally, from the dignity of his Divine person, some things are to be observed in his sufferings, which have no place in the eternal misery of the damned.
Herman Witsius, http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=15952
How does the death of one divine person satisfy the other divine person?
Here I will refer the reader to Francis Turretin's "Institutes of Elenctic Theology", Topic 14, Question 11, pages 426-438. There is too much to quote and it is better to read the whole thing. In fact just read all three volumes if you are interested in Protestant theology. Stay away from the moderns.
Here I will refer the reader to Francis Turretin's "Institutes of Elenctic Theology", Topic 14, Question 11, pages 426-438. There is too much to quote and it is better to read the whole thing. In fact just read all three volumes if you are interested in Protestant theology. Stay away from the moderns.
It's a real shame that Mr. Vendredi cannot take even a single moment to be serious enough to discuss these issues and instead resorts to ridicule and jesting. The answers he seeks have been given. He may not like them but they are out there. Perhaps they are locked away in tomes he has never heard of let alone read. That just means he needs to seek harder.
No comments:
Post a Comment