Claims 13 and 14 are critiqued in part 66 of Mr. Vendredi's series on the atonement.
Claim 13: “God pours out his wrath and all the torments of hell upon the crucified Christ imputing Christ’s righteousness to mankind and mankind wickedness to Christ. Thereby mankind becomes positionally righteous Christ positionally wicked. But in reality mankind remains wicked. The imputation is merely a legal declaration.”
He breaks this down into two parts
Part 1
God pours out his wrath on Christ.
The prooftext for this is the suffering servant passage in Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12.
Isaiah 53:5: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
The inspired interpretation of this passage is found in Matthew 8.
Matthew 8:16: ¶When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
Matthew 8:17: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
The suffering servant prophecy in Isaiah is fulfilled when Christ heals our infirmities not when he is allegedly vicariously whacked in our place. Therefore we can replace the words "sorrows," "griefs," and "iniquities" with the phrase "damaged human condition."
Isaiah 53:4: ¶Surely he hath borne our damaged human condition and carried our damaged human condition: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isaiah 53:6: All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the damaged human condition of us all.
Isaiah 53:11: He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their damaged human condition.
Oh boy here we go again with this phrase "damaged human condition." Not once does Mr. Vendredi define this term. Not once. This phrase is also not to the point. In Matthew we see Jesus Christ healing the sick and casting out devils. He is not bearing our damaged human condition, whatever that means. He is literally casting out devils and healing the sick. There is no reason to change the words in Isaiah from the more concrete "sorrows," "griefs," and "iniquities" to the abstract "damaged human condition." Especially when Christ equates sin and sickness elsewhere.
Matthew 9:2: And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
To interpret the suffering servant passage we also need a bit of literary sophistication. It's not as cut and dry as it seems. When the passage tells us,
Isaiah 53:10: ¶Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him;
this is merely the literary device known as agent compression. When God in his passive will permits an agent to do something contrary to His active will the Biblical writers often phrase it as if God Himself is doing the action. It cannot possibly be God's active will to bruise the Son because of Luke 3:21-22.
Luke 3:21: Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
Luke 3:22: And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Huh? How does this passage mean that God was not pleased to bruise the Son? We don't find out because Mr. Vendredi keeps on trucking and does not stop to clarify.
He does not have time to examine verses like the following:
Matthew 26:39: And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Mark 14:36: And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Luke 22:42: Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
John 10:17: Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
John 12:27: Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
John 12:28: Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
John 12:29: The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
John 12:30: Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
John 12:31: Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
John 12:32: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
John 12:33: This he said, signifying what death he should die.
Acts 2:23: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
All these verses indicate that it was very much the active will of God that Christ die on the cross. John 10:17 tells us that this is why the Father loves the Son, because he lays his life down. But as for Mr. Vendredi...
Part 2 of claim 13 deals with the imputation of Christ's righteousness to mankind and the imputation of mankind's sin and guilt to Christ.
Mr. Vendredi summarily dismisses this claim of double imputation by quoting two verses.
Proverbs 24:24: He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:
Proverbs 17:26: Also to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity.
These two proverbs destroy the notion that God satisfies his wrath through the machinery of imputations and buy offs. How? Mr. Vendredi does not tell us. He takes these verses in Proverbs which apply to men's relations with one another and applies them to God and his dealings with men.
We have seen previously that there are no righteous men.
II Chronicles 6:36: If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;
Ecclesiastes 7:20: For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
The words in 2 Chronicles, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes all belong to Solomon. Is Solomon contradicting himself? Of course not. So how can he say both there are just men and there are no just men and still be speaking the truth? Paul Vendredi does not discuss this issue at all. He is content with a simplistic surface reading of these two proverbs as if they apply to Christ.
According to Mr. Vendredi in order for double imputation to work God would have to violate two of his precepts in order to play make believe that man is righteous and Christ is wicked.
Precept 1 is that the innocent can never take the place of the guilty.
Deuteronomy 24:16: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Jeremiah 31:30: But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
Ezekiel 18:20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Precept 2 is that it is damnable to proclaim the wicked righteous.
Proverbs 24:24: He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:
The atonement school says God kills his own innocent son, which violates the first precept, in order to pretend that this somehow renders wicked mankind righteous, which violates the second precept. The defenders of this notion are reduced to special pleading which is of course a logical fallacy.
Has Paul Vendredi forgotten that Jesus Christ is special? Since Christ is a man he ought to be a sinner and to have a father. He also ought to be dead since he died on the cross. But we see otherwise.
Luke 1:35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Matthew 28:6: He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
I Peter 2:22: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
Is this special pleading? Christ, a man like ourselves, had no earthly father, rose from the dead, and was sinless. Rather than break off into a tangent about "God's logic" vs. "human logic" it would have been better for Mr. Vendredi if he had stuck to actualities and not abstractions. Jesus Christ is special. He is the second person of the Trinity and not a mere man.
Mr. Vendredi does not want to deal with this issue at all. He simply takes umbrage at penal substitution and uses every trick in the book to heap scorn and abuse on those who teach it. Here are two rebuttals to the objections Mr. Vendredi has made against double imputation. He may not like them or agree with them but here they are nonetheless. From Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology.
All those who advocate a subjective theory of the atonement raise a formidable objection to the idea of vicarious atonement. They consider it unthinkable that a just God should transfer His wrath against moral offenders to a perfectly innocent party, and should treat the innocent judicially as if he were guilty. There is undoubtedly a real difficulty here, especially in view of the fact that this seems to be contrary to all human analogy. We cannot conclude from the possibility of the transfer of a pecuniary debt to that of the transfer of a penal debt. If some beneficent person offers to pay the pecuniary debt of another, the payment must be accepted, and the debtor is ipso facto freed from all obligation. But this is not the case when someone offers to atone vicariously for the transgression of another. To be legal, this must be expressly permitted and authorized by the lawgiver. In reference to the law this is called relaxation, and in relation to the sinner it is known as remission. The judge need not, but can permit this; yet he can permit it only under certain conditions, as (1) that the guilty party himself is not in a position to bear the penalty through to the end, so that a righteous relation results; (2) that the transfer does not encroach upon the rights and privileges of innocent third parties, nor cause them to suffer hardships and privations; (3) that the person enduring the penalty is not himself already indebted to justice, and does not owe all his services to the government; and (4) that the guilty party retains the consciousness of his guilt and of the fact that the substitute is suffering for him. In view of all this it will be understood that the transfer of penal debt is well-nigh, if not entirely, impossible among men. But in the case of Christ, which is altogether unique, because in it a situation obtained which has no parallel, all the conditions named were met. There was no injustice of any kind.
page 376
Justification is sometimes called an impious procedure, because it declares sinners to be righteous contrary to fact. But this objection does not hold, because the divine declaration is not to the effect that these sinners are righteous in themselves, but that they are clothed with the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. This righteousness wrought by Christ, is freely imputed to them. It is not the personal subjective righteousness of Christ, but His vicarious covenant righteousness, that is imputed to those who are in themselves unrighteous, and all to the glory of God.
page 524
 |
| Read Me |
Claim 14: “The wickedness of all humanity having been imputed to him the crucified Christ becomes a literal curse and the embodiment of sin.”
Another claim broken down into two parts.
Part 1: Christ bears the sins of all humanity.
The usual proof text is:
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.
But this is just Isaiah 53 recapitulated and he has already proven that this means Christ bore our damaged human condition.
Let's quote some more of that passage.
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.
I Peter 2:25: For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Paying close attention to the context we see Peter is talking about suffering. We are to be patient in our sufferings because Christ suffered for us. He bore our sins on the cross and suffered for us. And what about "damaged human condition?" Once again Paul Vendredi fails to define this term or tell us how Christ bore it. He dismisses this claim by saying he already explain it away.
If Isaiah 53 means that Christ bore our sicknesses and infirmities and not that he bore our sins and the guilt of our transgressions then why do Christians die of sickness and become infirm?
Part 2: Christ becomes a literal curse.
Part 3: Christ becomes the embodiment of sin.
These claims are proved from the following scriptures.
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:
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.
Both of these scriptures must be interpreted hyperbolically. If Christ is literally cursed because he hanged on a tree then everyone who has ever been lynched is also cursed. If Christ literally became sin then God became sin because God was in Christ reconciling the world. Also sin is nothing. It has no substance. Therefore Christ would have become nothing if he literally became sin.
These are strong arguments against these particular claims of penal substitution. If only he could have focused on such arguments and interacted with the answers of theologians who teach these claims instead of wasting everyone's time with an out-of-place and not-even-funny audio clip from Chinatown. Forget it Jake, it's Paul Vendredi town.
He goes on to tell us that the earliest commentaries call these passages figurative.
Gregory of Nanzianzen's letter to Cledonius.
And so the passage, The Word was made Flesh, seems to me to be equivalent to that in which it is said that He was made sin, (2 Corinthians 5:21) or a curse (Galatians 3:13) for us; not that the Lord was transformed into either of these, how could He be? But because by taking them upon Him He took away our sins and bore our iniquities.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3103a.htm
That definitely still contradicts Mr. Vendredi.
Theodoret approves this letter in first dialogue
Orth.— Hear him then. He saysthe expression 'He was made Flesh' seems to be parallel to His being said to have been made sin and a curse, not because the Lord was transmuted into these—for how could He?— but because He accepted these when He took on Him our iniquities and bore our infirmities.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27031.htm
Theodoret does not agree with Mr. Vendredi either. Theodoret says Christ accepted the curse when he took on our iniquities.
Basil in his 8th letter calls curse and sin figures of speech.
8. Again, as is said through Solomon the Wise in the Proverbs, “He was created;” and He is named “Beginning of ways” of good news, which lead us to the kingdom of heaven. He is not in essence and substance a creature, but is made a “way” according to the œconomy. Being made and being created signify the same thing. As He was made a way, so was He made a door, a shepherd, an angel, a sheep, and again a High Priest and an Apostle, Hebrews 3:1 the names being used in other senses. What again would the heretics say about God unsubjected, and about His being made sin for us? For it is written “But when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him.” Are you not afraid, sir, of God called unsubjected? For He makes your subjection His own; and because of your struggling against goodness He calls himself unsubjected. In this sense too He once spoke of Himself as persecuted— “Saul, Saul,” He says, “why do you persecute me?” Acts 9:4 on the occasion when Saul was hurrying to Damascus with a desire to imprison the disciples. Again He calls Himself naked, when any one of his brethren is naked. “I was naked,” He says, “and you clothed me;” Matthew 25:36 and so when another is in prison He speaks of Himself as imprisoned, for He Himself took away our sins and bare our sicknesses. Now one of our infirmities is not being subject, and He bare this. So all the things which happen to us to our hurt He makes His own, taking upon Him our sufferings in His fellowship with us.
Gregory of Nysa, Book 6, Sec 1 Against Eunomius
For he everywhere attributes to the Human element in Christ the dispensation of the Passion, when he says,for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead 1 Corinthians 15:21,and,God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinfulflesh, condemned sin in the flesh(for he says,in the flesh,notin the Godhead); andHe was crucified through weakness(where byweaknesshe meansthe flesh),yet lives by power 2 Corinthians 13:4(while he indicates bypowerthe Divine Nature); and,He died unto sin(that is, with regard to the body),but lives unto God Romans 6:10(that is, with regard to the Godhead, so that by these words it is established that, while the Man tasted death, the immortal Nature did not admit the suffering of death); and again;He made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin 2 Corinthians 5:21,giving once more the name ofsinto the flesh.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290106.htm
And finally Ambrose of Milan Book 2, Chapter 11, Sec 93 of Exposition of the Christian Faith.
93. Let us bethink ourselves of the profitableness of right belief. It is profitable to me to know that for my sake Christ bore my infirmities, submitted to the affections of my body, that for me, that is to say, for every man, He was made sin, and a curse, that for me and in me was He humbled and made subject, that for me He is the Lamb, the Vine, the Rock, the Servant, the Son of an handmaid, knowing not the day of judgment, for my sake ignorant of the day and the hour.
94. For how could He, Who has made days and times, be ignorant of the day? How could He not knowthe day, Who has declared both the season of Judgment to come, and the cause? A curse, then, He was made not in respect of His Godhead, but of His flesh; for it is written:Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree.In and after the flesh, therefore, He hung, and for this cause He, Who bore our curses, became a curse. He wept that thou, man, might not weep long. He endured insult, that you might not grieve over the wrong done to you.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34042.htm
It seems as if none of these Church Fathers is in agreement with Mr. Vendredi who denies that Christ bore our sins but only our "damaged human condition." Perhaps he should reread those documents.
No comments:
Post a Comment