Contra Paul Vendredi Book 4

We are now at claim number 7 which Paul Vendredi breaks down over three episodes. Claim 7 has numerous sub-arguments which must be refuted. But the main argument is critiqued in part 61.

Claim 7 states "God instituted the Old Testament animal sacrifices because our debt to him must be paid in blood."

This claim is wrong because it fails to distinguish between the original and limited set of animal sacrifices prior to golden calf incident and the extensive array of sacrifices imposed upon Israel after the golden calf incident.

The demarcation line within the law

The pre-golden calf sacrifices serve as anti-Egyptian iconoclasm while the post-golden calf sacrifices serve to punish the Aaronic priests for making the golden calf and to punish the ordinary Israelites for convincing the priests into making this false idol.

There are six pre-golden calf sacrifices.

1. The original onetime passover sacrifice of Exodus 12.

2. The once a year commemoration of the Passover.

3. The sacrifices of first born male animals to commemorate the 10th plague of Egypt.

4. The one time sacrifice of young bulls at the foot of Mount Sinai to mark the ratification of God's covenant with Israel in Exodus 24.

5. The sacrifices of bulls, lambs, and rams at the ordination of the priests in Exodus 29.

6. The once a year sacrifice of a bullock to atone for the altar of incense in Exodus 30:10.

The primary purpose of the Passover, according to Mr. Vendredi, was to destroy symbolically the creator gods of Egypt.  

In all his discussion he does not once bring up the prefigurement of Christ in this sacrifice or in any of the sacrifices in the Old Testament. He does not discuss the Passover meal and Christ's institution of the supper or verses that tell us Christ is our Passover sacrificed for us. Nor does he discuss any of the explanations offered for the sacrifices given in the letter to the Hebrews.

Mark 14:22: ¶And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.   

Mark 14:23: And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.  

Mark 14:24: And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

I Corinthians 5:7: Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Hebrews 7:26: For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 

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.

Mr. Vendredi tells us there were only three things happening at the passover in Exodus 12. 

1. They were destroying the god Herishef.

2. They were destroying the god Khonsu.

3. Most importantly they were destroying the god Khnum.

The angel of death brought the 10th plague upon the firstborn in all of Egypt. Khnum is the creator of the childs force and is a protector of children. By killing a juvenile ram the Isrealites are killing the protector of Egpyt's babies making way for the angel of death to come and kill the firstborn.

And the Bible tell us this!

Exodus 12:12: For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

One problem. The intricate mythology Mr. Vednredi painstakingly draws out is not to be found in this passage. Nor is it to be found anywhere else in the Old Testament or in the New Testament.  The New Testament interprets the Old in light of Christ.  But he does not discuss Christ at all. It may be that Mr. Vendredi is correct about the gods of Egypt. But so what? The primary purpose for us is the prefigurement of Christ. In light of the topic of the whole series, which is the atonement and the nature of Christ's death, a thorough discussion of Christ is what is needed, not a mythology lesson. He needs to prove that Christ is not prefigured in the Passover.  Or if Christ is prefigured in the Passover, how is he prefigured? He does not do this.  He ignores Christ altogether.

And what about the deaths of all the firstborn of the animals? How does that figure into Mr. Vendredi's explanation of the Passover?  He does not say.

Exodus 12:12: For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

Exodus 12:29: ¶And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

So the purpose of the first three of the six sacrifices is to desecrate the ram gods of Egypt while the purpose of the latter three is to desecrate the bull gods of Egypt. The reason being to cleanse Israel from the idolatrous religion that surrounded them during their sojourn in Egypt. Mr. Vendredi offers no proof that Israel was defiled by the religion of Egypt. He offers no proof that Israel forgot the promises of Abraham or the rest of its past or that they were defiled in any way.

Exodus 2:23: ¶And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. 

Exodus 3:7: ¶And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; 

Exodus 5:8: And the tale of the bricks, which they did make heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not diminish ought thereof: for they be idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God.

Here we have verses telling us that the Israelites cried to God for deliverance and that they wished to make sacrifices to their God. It seems as if they did not forget God at all and were not defiled by the religion of Egypt. What sacrifices did they wish to make when God had not ordained any yet and if indeed sacrifices were for the purpose of desecrating the Egyptian gods? Apparently none of this is important because Mr. Vendredi fails to mention any of these verses.  He makes assertions with no proof whatsoever.

The Lord gives an explanation of the Passover but Mr. Vendredi chooses to pass over it.

Exodus 12:23: For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you. 

Exodus 12:24: And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. 

Exodus 12:25: And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. 

Exodus 12:26: And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? 

Exodus 12:27: That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD'S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.

Does that line up with everything Mr. Vendredi has been teaching? Is the Passover primarily to desecrate the gods of Egypt or is it a memorial meal dedicated for the remembrance of God"s delivering the Israelites from bondage?

How is it that the Passover and the other sacrifices desecrate gods who do not exist by sacrificing animals which correspond to those gods?  This sounds a whole lot like sympathetic magic.  

Sympathetic magic, also known as imitative magic, is a type of magic based on imitation or correspondence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_magic

He does not tell us.

He also neglects to explain why it is that Jews in the first century were in need of continuing to defile the gods of Egypt through the yearly sacrifice of the Passover if that was its primary purpose. Those gods were long dead by the time of Christ. If the primary purpose of the Passover is iconoclastic then why continue the farce when all the gods are dead? 

Moving on to the sacrifices instituted post-golden calf or after Exodus 32 we are told that their purpose was twofold: to punish Aaron and his sons for their role in the golden calf apostasy and to punish rank and file Israelites for forcing Aaron to make the calf.

Huh-what??

Punishment? For Aaron and his sons? And for the Israelites? That's right. After spending so much time telling his audience that God does not punish the sons for the sins of the fathers Mr. Vendredi now tells us that the ongoing punishment for apostasy was to be the never-ending cycle of animal sacrifice as described in Leviticus and Numbers and that animal sacrifice is a special punishment reserved for the Jews.  

He neither offers proof from the Bible for his suggestion that the sacrifices are punishments for the golden calf incident and are a secondary law nor does he attempt to reconcile his position, that the Israelites are being punished for the sins of their fathers via the cycle of animal sacrifices, with his previous statements that men are punished for their own sins and not for another's. Not even to say that by punishment he means the ramifications of sin and not the guilt of sin. Mr. Vendredi passes by every argument he made against punishment and flatly contradicts himself.  

Instead he descends into absurdity once again.

See the blood atonement was only for the Jews because when Naaman the Syrian was cleansed of his leprosy he was not commanded to offer a sacrifice. But when Jesus cleansed a leper he commanded him to make the sacrifice prescribed in the law. Thus gentiles do not need blood atonement. Only the Jews need blood atonement. 

The Chaldeans atoned for their sins with 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.

The Assyrians atoned for their sins with repentance.

Jonah 3:9: Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? 

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. 

 The Philistines atoned for their sins with artwork.

I Samuel 6:3: And they said, If ye send away the ark of the God of Israel, send it not empty; but in any wise return him a trespass offering: then ye shall be healed, and it shall be known to you why his hand is not removed from you. 

I Samuel 6:4: Then said they, What shall be the trespass offering which we shall return to him? They answered, Five golden emerods, and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines: for one plague was on you all, and on your lords.I 

Samuel 6:5: Wherefore ye shall make images of your emerods, and images of your mice that mar the land; and ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods, and from off your land.

First of all there is nothing about atonement in any of those verses. Second of all what does he mean by atonement?  That after these things were done the sins of those heathens were cleansed and they were filled with Holy Ghost and made righteous in the sight of God and engrafted into Christ and made partakers of the inheritance of Abraham? Third of all God commanded sacrifices to be made in certain places and by certain men, namely the priests. So how would these uncircumcised heathens even be able to offer blood sacrifices?

Mr. Vendredi does not tell us what he means by atonement in those verses. He simply waltzes into the realm of absurdity and tells us that the Philistines atoned for their sins with artwork!

Did he forget the maxim: Hard cases make bad law?  Even if the Philistines atoned for their sins with artwork, well so what? Is this to be a law now? A singular extra-ordinary instance made into something ordinary?

I think it was all a setup anyway so he could say what amounts to probably the most horrendous and disgusting statement he makes in the whole series.

John Calvin suffered from haemorrhoids. Can you think of any affliction more fitting?  John Calvin is a thrombosed haemorrhoid on the anus of theology! 

 

Why even utter this statement?  Has Mr. Vendredi no sense of decency?

When your theology podcast is not family friendly you have got a problem.

Proceed to Book 5 

Contra Paul Vendredi Book 3

Here we are with Part 3 in our discussion of Paul Vendredi's series on the atonement.  Remember this is not a refutation of his arguments and a defence of penal substation per se.  It is a display of how holey is arguments are and how his logic is worthy of Spock who is a fictional being from a fictional planet in a fictional universe.

Book 3 will cover part 60 of Mr. Vendredi's series on the atonement which critiques claims 5 and 6 of the atonement school.

Claim 5 is as follows: “all sin is a debt we owe to God for the crime of having robbed him of his honour and because we have robbed an infinite being we owe him an infinite debt.”

According to Mr. Vendredi this claim rests on a simplistic hermeneutic which is an abuse of anthropomorphism.  The prooftext that God can be robbed is:

Malachi 3:8: ¶Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

Malachi 3:9: Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

He counter punches this woodenly anthropomorphic interpretation of God being robbed with:

Psalms 50:10: For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

Psalms 50:11: I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.

Psalms 50:12: If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.

Take that atonement school!

So why is God being robbed anthropomorphic and God owning possessions not?  Can a spirit own anything?  If God owns the cattle upon a thousand hills then what about the other hills?  And what about the fact that God commands the Israelites to tithe?  That his claim of being robbed is based on that command being neglected? 

NO. DISCUSSION.

He then tells us that this claim fails logically because even if God could be robbed the robber is a finite being and can only rob God of a finite amount!  If Mr. Vendredi's claim that men can only rob God of a finite amount is valid then why does God punish sinners for eternity? Is this injustice on the part of God? Are these verses only hyperbole? As you can guess there is no discussion of everlasting punishment.

Daniel 12:2: And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 

Matthew 18:8: Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. 

Revelation of John 20:10: And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Instead he breaks off into another ridiculous tangent, this time about the Greek gods. Homer used anthropomorphism to make the gods look foolish while the atonement school takes the passions of God seriously rather than just as a literary device. Mr. Vendredi could have used these precious minutes explaining the meaning behind these anthropomorphisms but he does not. He chooses to give us a lesson in mythology.

Claim 6 goes like this: “Because the sins of the fathers pass on to their children no baby is innocent rather all babies are born with a sin nature and are therefore criminals owing god the same infinite debt that their parents owe.”

Part 1 of this claim, the sins of the fathers fall on the guilt of the children, is refuted by using the same arguments he used to refute original sin.  Namely that each man is responsible for his own sin. He pits the following two verses agasint one another.

Jeremiah 32:18: Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name,

Vs.

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.

When Jeremiah says that the children shall suffer for the sins of their fathers it is merely a hyperbolic way of saying everyone suffers when someone sins. 

Is the Babylonian captivity hyperbole? Is the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites, including infants, hyperbole? How about the destruction of the entire family of Achan?  Is that hyperbole? If everyone dies for his own iniquity and babies die without having committed iniquity then why do babies die? Again we get no discussion.

We do get the declaration that this doctrine leads to a heretical Christology.

Is baby Jesus depraved? This was covered in the last book.  Suffice it to say Mr. Vendredi is silent on why infants grow up to become sinners. Is it in their fallen human nature? Is it because of the examples they see? What is the origin of sin in children?  Why do innocent babies grow up to become sinners?

What deserves at least a passing comment gets nothing.

Psalm 51:5 is the prooftext used to show that babies are born with a sin nature but when the Psalmist says he was born in sins and iniquity that's really a synonym for the damaged human condition and has nothing to do with sin or guilt transference.

Psalms 51:5: Behold, I was conceived and born in a damaged condition

Mr. Vendredi does not even attempt to reconcile his interpretation, that man is merely damaged and not a sinner estranged from God, with any verse that proves otherwise. Verses that tell us man is wicked from his youth, the thoughts of his heart are evil continually, that the Pharisees are a brood of vipers. He also fails to tell us what he means by damaged.  If man is not born a sinner then how is he born damaged?  Did he inherit it from Adam? If so how does this not contradict his claim that there is no original sin? And if he did not inherit it from Adam then from whence did it come?

Mr. Vendredi's final critique of claim six is pure reductio ad absurdum.

Very simply put if babies are as depraved as rats then there is no moral argument against abortion. Calvinists see babies abstractly as depraved sinners but practically as innocent creatures. It is cognitive dissonance to espouse infant depravity and to oppose abortion.

All babies are depraved sinners.

Abortion is the destruction of babies.

Therefore abortion is the destruction of depraved sinners.

Now on the face of it that is a valid syllogism. And I submit that this, that infants are not innocent sinless creatures, might indeed be why God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanite infants. But it does not mean that the doctrine of infant sin negates any opposition to abortion. According to this syllogism the most you can get is that abortion is the destruction of sinners. There is nothing in this syllogism that necessarily leads to an approval of abortion. You can go even farther and say:

All men are sinners.

Murder is the destruction of men.

Therefore murder is the destruction of sinners.

A valid syllogism.  But it still does not prove that the doctrine of original sin means an approval of murder.

Mr. Vendredi is so caught up in formulating valid syllogisms that he tosses truth and logic right out the window. He wishes to use ridicule instead of actually engaging with the argument. Why does he conflate infant depravity with an approval of murder? It makes no sense. If Mr. Vendredi confesses that he is a sinner does that mean he approves of suicide? No Calvinist approves of abortion or murder and the doctrine of infant depravity does not lead to such an approval. Mr. Vendredi's syllogisms do not even prove his case.

Let's try a syllogism modeled after his sort of muddy logic.

All men get hungry.

Gluttony stops men from being hungry.

Therefore gluttony is the solution to hunger.

Mr. Vendredi thinks he has won the argument because of his clever syllogisms.

If an abstraction in theology leads to infanticide in reality then that theology should be jettisoned.

Claim six is an an abstraction in theology leading to infanticide in reality. 

Therefore claim six should be jettisoned.

If P then Q. 

P. 

Therefore Q. 

MODUS PONENS!!!

But he has not. He has in no way proven that infant depravity leads to infanticide. It's a shame that Mr.Vendredi stoops to this level of absurdity. Being that there are still eleven more claims to critique I doubt there is any less silliness to come.

Proceed to Book 4

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 

Contra Paul Vendredi Book 1

This will the first in a series of several posts reviewing the arguments of Paul Vendredi against Penal Substitution. These posts will not be refuting him or rebutting him as much as they will be pointing out arguments he has skipped over. It will be shown that Paul Vendredi has graduated from the Krispy Kreme School of Theology which is to say his arguments are full of holes.

These articles will be based on his Cathedral School series on the atonement. I will not be quoting him because according to the disclaimer both before the start and at the close of his podcast I need permission to quote him. Rather than worry about moral and legal wrangling over this issue I will dispense with exact quotations altogether and instead give the equivalent of what he has said.

Ready?  Here we go!

This first article will be a response to Part 58 of his atonement series. Part 58 is where Mr. Vendredi begins to refute the 17 claims of the atonement school.

Claim 1 concerns orginal sin.  

“Because Adam is mankind’s federal head, all mankind is guilty of his sin in the garden of Eden”

He refutes this claim by saying it is not in the Bible but is the product of the blithering, drooling, insane heretic Augustine of Hippo.

Did you ever see a more insane heretic in all your life?

He proves this by making the point that Romans 5:12 is usually mistranslated to read "in whom all have sinned" rather than "because all have sinned."  I am not going to dispute this.  Even the KJV reads "because all have sinned" not "in whom all have sinned." It is a controversial translation issue.

Then we get a few Bible quotes to show that men are responsible for their own sins and not the sins of others.

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. 

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.

See that?  Original sin is impossible because men are responsible for their own sin.

Here's the thing.

There are quite a few verses he passed over in his very limited discussion of this doctrine.  It's not as easy as quoting a verse and then dropping the mic.  

Exodus 20:5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 

Exodus 34:7: Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. 

Numbers 14:18: The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. 

Deuteronomy 5:9: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

In all of these verses we read of children paying for the sins of their fathers.  No mention or discussion of these verses whatsoever.

Then there's this verse:

Hebrews 7:9: And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

Hebrews 7:10: For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Levi paid tithes in Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek despite not even being born! Not a single peep on this verse.  Not one.

And yet it is a verse that clearly shows a man not yet born can be said to have done something in his ancestor.  

Then there is the whole issue that Christ freely made his soul an offering for sin.  

Isaiah 53:10: ¶Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Whose sin is Christ making an offering for?  His own?  Or another's?

Contrary to his claim that he has wiped the slate clean of claim one Mr. Vendredi still has a lot of washing to do.

Moving on to Claim 2 which is Total Depravity. This doctrine teaches that as a result of Adam’s sin all mankind is wicked, totally depraved in all faculties, dead in sin, unable to please God, and unable to even desire to please God.

His refutation of this claim starts with the assertion that Christ had a human nature and if human nature is totally depraved then Christ is totally depraved and this is of course blasphemy.  And if we deny that Christ is exempt from total depravity, well that's the logical fallacy of special pleading.

Again there are verses he totally skips over. Verses that tell us Christ was in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Romans 8:3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Yet without sin.

Hebrews 4:15: For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

And verses that speak about the wickedness of man.

Genesis 8:21: And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

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

No discussion of these two things, Christ taking on human nature without sin and man being a sinner from the womb, at all.  But that's ok because his syllogism is totally valid.

He then goes on to say that total depravity contradicts the natural law theory which states two things:

1. The mind of man can discern the attributes and existence of God just from observing nature. 

2. All men are capable of discerning the commandments of God, are capable of obeying those commandments, and are therefore obligated to obey those commandments.

He proves these points from the Bible using Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 2:14-15 respectively.

 Point 1

Romans 1:18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 

Romans 1:19: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 

Romans 1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 Point 2

Romans 2:14: For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 

Romans 2:15: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Then he presumes to dismantle another prooftext of total depravity,

Romans 3:10: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

by showing that there are many people in the Bible who are called righteous.

Noah 

Genesis 7:1: And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 

Abel

Matthew 23:35: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 

Elisabeth and Zacharias

Luke 1:5: ¶There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 

Luke 1:6: And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

If the Bible calls these men righteous then Romans 3:10 is hyperbole.

Now wait a minute.  Hold the phone there buddy.

What if Romans 3:10 is not hyperbole?  What if those men being called righteous is hyperbole? The Bible does say,

Ecclesiastes 7:20: For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

That includes Noah, Abel, and Zacharias and Elisabeth. All these people were sinners.  Noah was drunk at one point and Zacharias did not believe the angel from God. Are sinners righteous? No. Then perhaps we had better investigate why these men are called righteous. Paul Venderdi does not explore that issue at all.  He passes right by it.

Then he goes on to quote Romans 3:11 to show that the atonement school has engaged in the fallacy of misplaced literalism.

Romans 3:11a: There is none that understandeth

"Oh really?", says Mr. Venderdi.

Exodus 31:2: See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 

Exodus 31:3: And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,

 Boo-yah!  Take that atonement school folks!

Romans 3:11b:  there is none that seeketh after God.

"If that is true literally," says Mr. Vendredi, "then what about the following verses?"

II Chronicles 7:14: If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 

Psalms 42:1: As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. 

Psalms 27:8: When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek. 

Matthew 5:6: Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Where to begin? Romans 3 is about the sinfulness of men and how men do not seek after or understand God. To quote Exodus 31 where God says he gave understanding to a man concerning craftwork so he could construct the ark and all its furniture as prooftext that natural unregenerate men devoid of the Holy Spirit do in fact understand divine things is laughable. The "understanding" in both of those passages are of totally different kinds. Not to mention the fact that God is said to have given Bezaleel his understanding. Bezaleel did not get his understanding by studying to show himself approved. It was a gift from God.

How about none that seeketh? Do we need to be reminded that Romans 3 is talking about the wicked? That Romans 3 is a quotation of Psalm 14?  Do we need to be reminded that Psalm 47 and 28 are both Psalms of David, a man after God's own heart? Of course David is going to be seeking God.  He is not a worker of iniquity.  Do workers of inquity seek after God? Why does anyone seek God in the first place? Why do men thirst and hunger after righteousness? This would have been a good time to bring up a number of passages. 

John 6:44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 

Psalms 85:4: Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger toward us to cease. 

Lamentations 5:21: Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

But he does not bring up these passages to refute them. So once again we have a black hole of theological discussion.

Paul Vendredi thinks he has obliterated claims one and two of the atonement school.

Hulk Hogan's finishing move

But the reality is that he has left many questions unanswered and has quickly passed over any discussion of passages that are contrary to his doctrine.  He has not been thorough in his debunking of claims one and two in the slightest.  

Hulk Hogan's finished

Proceed to Book 2

God's Promises Are Common to All Men

John Calvin's Sermons on Deuteronomy are full of little gems like the following.

Sermons on Deuteronomy 93, pg 575

"God's promises are common to all men because he hath showed himself to be the father  indifferently of all men"

Once again Calvin shows himself to be no friend of those sects who teach the doctrines that God has no dealings with the reprobate whatsoever except to show them wrath, that there is no well-meant offer of the Gospel, and that God is not the Father of all men.