Contra Paul Vendredi Book 9

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 says the 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.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202008.htm

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, not in the Godhead); and He was crucified through weakness (where by weakness he means the flesh), yet lives by power 2 Corinthians 13:4  (while he indicates by power the 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 of sin to 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.

Proceed to Book 10

Contra Paul Vendredi Book 8

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.

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.

Proceed to Book 9

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 first 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