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

Contra Paul Vendredi Book 6

This is the final critique of claim number seven which has six sub-arguments. In Book 5 sub-arguments 1-3 were covered. Paul Vendredi's critique of sub-claims 4-6 can be found in the video below.

Sub-claim 4: "God has demanded blood sacrifice from all men in all eras."

This is completely false and unbiblical. God only demands blood sacrifice in the Mosaic era. The atonement school's assertion that Cain's sacrifice was rejected because it was vegetable and not animal is likewise false and unbiblical.  The Bible only tells us THAT his sacrifice was rejected, not WHY it was rejected.  The atonement school adds words to the text when they posit imaginary conversations between God and Cain to this effect. Besides this the Church Fathers are pretty unanimous that the problem was not that the sacrifice was unbloody.

There are two things to take notice of in this critique.

First of all is the following principle found in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

http://www.reformation21.org/confession/2013/01/chapter-16.php

"Adding words" to the scripture is not necessarily twisting the scripture, being unfaithful to the scripture or "adding to the scripture."  Case in point: the Trinity. The Bible does not give us a dogma of the Trinity. Monotheletism, hypostasis, essence, all that has been formulated in the church councils is not in the Bible but is deduced from it by good and necessary consequence.

More to the point for this podcast on the atonement is Genesis 3.

Genesis 3:21: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Nowhere are we told that God killed animals to make coats of skin. But good and necessary consequence leads us to that conclusion. Furthermore it is only logical to assume that God killing these animals was done to instruct Adam in animal sacrifice.  Why does Abel offer animals?  Why does Cain offer vegetables?  Who taught these men to sacrifice in the first place? Good and necessary consequence would lead us to believe that God taught Adam who taught his sons.  

Needless to say Paul Vendredi does not wrestle with these difficult discussions but he settles for a simplistic hermeneutic by taking the text only at face value and rejecting any exploration of the underlying themes.  

For adding words to the text about God demanding animal sacrifices Mr. Vendredi says that across the span of the series he has called a number of people liars, heretics, and hypocrites, most notably R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur but he did it in a really silly slapstick kind of way because he doesn't actually take these guys as seriously as he probably should. He just views them as clowns.

Perhaps if he took these men seriously and the theology they teach seriously then his podcast would not be filled to overflowing with lewd, inane, and repulsive jesting.

Ephesians 5:3: But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 

Ephesians 5:4: Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

Second of all if it is true, and it is, that the Bible does not tell us WHY Cain's offering was rejected then any explanation of the rejection is pure speculation. Therefore there is no reason for Mr. Vendredi to accept the explanation of the Fathers that the rejection of Cain's sacrifice had nothing to do with blood as being the authoritative explanation.

Sub-argument 5: "God enjoys blood sacrifice."

This claim contradicts the Bible. 

Micah 6:6: ¶Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? 

Micah 6:7: Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 

Micah 6:8: He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

God requires obedience not sacrifice. When the Lord is said to find the sacrifices sweet smelling that is in reference to the obedience of the offerer and not the burning carcass.

I Samuel 15:22: And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

It's true.  God does require obedience and offering a sacrifice with an unclean heart is not pleasing to God.  However it is also true that God requires sacrifice. The law is replete with the command to sacrifice. Whatever interpretation one takes it is a fact that God does require sacrifice. Even amongst Christians.

Hebrews 13:15: By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

Next Mr. Vendredi refers to story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22. This passage opens with God commanding Abraham to offer Isaac his only son for a burnt offering. God stays Abraham's hand from offering Isaac and the story ends with God rewarding Abraham for his obedience.

Genesis 22:16: And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 

Genesis 22:17: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 

Genesis 22:18: And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

God blesses Abraham for acting out of obedience not for offering a blood sacrifice. God does not receive Isaac in sacrifice at all and appears simply to ignore the ram that Abraham of his own volition substitutes for Isaac.

God does not receive Isaac in sacrifice at all and appears simply to ignore the ram that Abraham of his own volition substitutes for Isaac.

Genesis 22:7: And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 

Genesis 22:8: And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. 

Genesis 22:9: And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. 

Genesis 22:10: And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 

Genesis 22:11: And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 

Genesis 22:12: And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.  

Genesis 22:13: And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 

Genesis 22:14: And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah–jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

What does Jehovah-jireh mean?

And what did the Lord provide? What did he see to? The ram!  He provided the ram and saw to it that a proper sacrifice was offered to him instead of Isaac!

How can Mr. Vendredi not only miss the meaning of this story as a prefigurement of Christ but also pass over the actual events of this story with a straight face? 

He then quotes from the 6th Festal Letter of Athansius to prove his point that the testing of Abraham was all about Abraham's obedience. Has he even read this letter? Here is the section immediately prior to the one he quotes.

For thus the patriarch Abraham rejoiced not to see his own day, but that of the Lord; and thus looking forward 'he saw it, and was glad.' And when he was tried, by faith he offered up Isaac, and sacrificed his only-begotten son— he who had received the promises. And, in offering his son, he worshipped the Son of God. And, being restrained from sacrificing Isaac, he saw the Messiah in the ram, which was offered up instead as a sacrifice to God. The patriarch was tried, through Isaac, not however that he was sacrificed, but He who was pointed out in Isaiah; 'He shall be led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers he shall be speechless ;' but He took away the sin of the world. And on this account [Abraham] was restrained from laying his hand on the lad, lest the Jews, taking occasion from the sacrifice of Isaac, should reject the prophetic declarations concerning our Saviour, even all of them, but more especially those uttered by the Psalmist; 'Sacrifice and offering You would not; a body You have prepared Me;' and should refer all such things as these to the son of Abraham.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806006.htm

St. Athanasius does not agree with Mr. Vendredi at all when he says God ignores the ram Abraham offered up in sacrifice.  This holy man tell us that the Messiah was prefigured in the ram!

Sub-argument 6: "Blood sacrifice is an atonement transaction."

This is the atonement school's strongest argument because it is based on two very explicit scriptures.

Leviticus 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 

Hebrews 9:22: And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

But these verses are hyperbole. For if it is the case that only blood can make an atonement then the Bible contradicts itself.  There are several places where we are told atonement was made without blood.

Atonement by a tenth of an ephah of flour. 

Leviticus 5:11: ¶But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. 

Leviticus 5:12: Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering. 

Leviticus 5:13: And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.

Atonement by the scapegoat. 

Leviticus 16:10: But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Atonement by non-bloody liturgical works.

Numbers 8:19: And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the tabernacle of the congregation, and to make an atonement for the children of Israel: that there be no plague among the children of Israel, when the children of Israel come nigh unto the sanctuary.

Atonement by offering up incense. 

Numbers 16:46: ¶And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is begun. 

Numbers 16:47: And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made an atonement for the people. 

Numbers 16:48: And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed.

Atonement by offering up treasure.

Numbers 31:50: We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.

Atonement by destroying idols.

Isaiah 27:9: By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this is all the fruit to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.

Atonement by good works and 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.

Atonement by repentance and fasting.

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.

Atonement by offering up golden mice and haemorrhoids.

I Samuel 6:7: Now therefore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their calves home from them: 

I Samuel 6:8: And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return him for a trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and send it away, that it may go.

Now these are all very interesting verses which deserve a further scrutiny which will not be given here. Mr. Vendredi fails to tell us how the atonements in these passages are related at all to the atonement of Christ. He declines to even define atonement. Instead of giving a litany of verses that offer up difficult circumstances to exegete and that serve only to confuse the listener into thinking that man can be atoned by artwork and treasure he should have explained how it is that Christ does or does not atone for our sins by his own blood.

Colossians 1:14: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 

I Peter 1:18: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 

I Peter 1:19: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:  

Hebrews 13:12: Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 

Hebrews 9:12: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.  

Hebrews 9:13: For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:  

Hebrews 9:14: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Those are just a few of the many verses in the New Testament that tell us we are redeemed by, sanctified by, and atoned for by the blood of Jesus Christ. Mr. Vendredi should have stuck to passages like these since his series is about the atonement of Christ.  Is this all hyperbole?  If so then what is the true meaning of these verses?

There is no discussion.

Before moving on to the remaining criticism of this sub-argument Mr. Vendredi breaks off into a long tangent about himself that speaks volumes about his state of mind.

"I have put together THE most thoroughgoing destruction of vicarious atonement EVER!  You will not find this information anywhere else on the planet. It is not taught in the seminaries. It is not on the lips of parish priests. It is not found in any book in anything like clarity or development. And what about all you’ve learned just in the sidebars of these shows? Orthodox eucharistic theology, infant baptism, syllogistic logic. Yet all anyone wants to talk about is (in a high pitched, mocking voice) he calls St. Augustine “disgustin’ augustine.” Why cant he be more reverent?"

Could he be more arrogant and childish? Whoever heard of an irreverent Christian ministry?

Continuing with his criticism he tell us that the atonement school views the atonement as a vending machine where one puts an animal sacrifice into the slot and out comes the Snickers bar of atonement.

One has to be forgiven in order to offer sacrifice. Jesus said so.

Matthew 5:23: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 

Matthew 5:24: Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

If animal sacrifice is an antonement transaction then the attitude of the offerer would make no difference. The bare fact that blood has been shed should be enough appease God. Sacrifices are invalid when offered with bad intent and with a bad heart. And God hates these sacrifices.

Amos 5:21: ¶I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. 

Amos 5:22: Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. 

Amos 5:23: Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. 

Amos 5:24: But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

I agree with Mr. Vendredi. Sacrifices offered blithely and while still in a state of sin are abhorrent to God. But why is he now taking the hatred of God literally?  I thought God's hatred was all hyperbole and a byproduct of human sin colliding with the divine energies? Does God hate or does he not hate?

If Mr. Vendredi is really intent on proving that the sacrifices in the Old Testament are not atonement transactions he has a whole lot further to go.  It's no wonder the material in this series is not being taught in seminaries. Here are just a few verses that bear comment and which Mr. Vendredi neglects.

Hebrews 9:13: For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 

Hebrews 9:14: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 10:1: For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 

Hebrews 10:2: For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 

Hebrews 10:3: But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 

Hebrews 10:4: For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 

Hebrews 10:5: Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 

Hebrews 10:6: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 

Hebrews 10:7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 

Hebrews 10:8: Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 

Hebrews 10:9: Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 

Hebrews 10:10: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.  

Hebrews 10:11: And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 

Hebrews 10:12: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 

Hebrews 10:13: From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 

Hebrews 10:14: For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

This passage in Hebrews 10 is especially rich in sacrificial imagery.  We are told that God does not take pleasure in burnt offering and offerings for sin as Mr. Vendredi has said. But we are told that Christ had a body prepared for Him by which he offered a sacrifice for sin and sanctifies us and which Mr. Vendredi neglects to explain. This very important passage is essential to understanding both the Old Testament sacrifices and the death of Jesus Christ. It's so important that for Mr. Vendredi to neglect it is inexcusable and inconceivable.

Proceed to Book 7