ADAM FANNIN LAW OF LIBERTY BAPTIST CHURCH: REPENTANCE CHALLENGE

REPENT OF SINS - False Gospel (youtube.com)

Adam Fannin is the pastor of The Law of Liberty Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, I have decided to take him up on his Repentance Challenge. 

Fannin's interpretation of repent is "to change our minds about Jesus Christ " or "to be persuaded to change your faith." (Luke 16:30-31). Fannin insists that the bible defines repentance as a change of mind and he rejects the concept of repentance as a change in direction or turning from sin. Isn't turning away from a false belief system such as the JW'S to Jesus Christ the ultimate in turning away from sin? 

Repentance encompasses two sides of the same coin i.e. it involves changing one's mind about sin as well as putting one's trust in Jesus Christ. Don't the demons believe without repentance? (James 2:19). The scriptures inform us that salvation is the gift of God by grace through faith. (Ephesians 2:8). Those who define repentance as a "work" do so because they understand "repent" in rudimentary terms as "turning from sin". However, repentance cannot be considered a "work"; it is a volitional response to God's grace and the conviction of the Holy Spirit. (John 16:8-11).

Fannin says he is not an advocate of going back to the Hebrew and the Greek languages. The Law of Liberty Baptist Church is an Independent Baptist church that adheres to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. The KJV is a good version, but it is not 100% correct and King James Onlyism can sometimes impede our understanding of the original texts. In this instance, Fannin uses the short definition of repent - metanoeó: to change one's mind.1 

The short definition of μετανοέω is restrictive as demonstrated below.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

1. (a.) Prostrate and rooting; -- said of stems.
2. (a.) Same as Reptant.
3. (v. i.) To feel pain, sorrow, or regret, for what one has done or omitted to do.
4. (v. i.) To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account of regret or dissatisfaction.
5. (v. i.) To be sorry for sin as morally evil, and to seek forgiveness; to cease to love and practice sin.
6. (v. t.) To feel pain on account of; to remember with sorrow.
7. (v. t.) To feel regret or sorrow; -- used reflexively.
8. (v. t.) To cause to have sorrow or regret; -- used impersonally.2 

Blue Letter Bible:
to change one's mind, i.e. to repent
to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins
"Repentance (metanoia, 'change of mind') involves a turning with contrition from sin to God; the repentant sinner is in the proper condition to accept the divine forgiveness." (F. F. Bruce. The Acts of the Apostles [Greek Text Commentary], London: Tyndale, 1952, p. 97.)3 

Ellicott: "(2) Repent.--Etymologically, the word 'repent,' which has as its root-meaning the sense of pain, is hardly adequate as a rendering for the Greek word, which implies change of mind and purpose. In the Greek version of the Old Testament, the word is used of divine rather than human repentance, i.e., of a change of purpose implying pity and regret (1Samuel 15:29; Jeremiah 4:28; Jeremiah 18:8). In Wisdom Of Solomon 5:3; Ecclesiasticus 17:24; Ecclesiasticus 48:15, it includes the sorrow out of which the change comes."4  

Meyer: "Matthew 3:2. Μετανοεῖτε] denotes the transformation of the moral disposition, which is requisite in order to obtain a share in the kingdom of the Messiah."4

Cambridge Bible: Repent ye] The original implies more than 'feel sorrow or regret for sin,' it is rather 'change the life, the heart, the motive for action.' It was a call to self-examination and reality of life.4

Clarke: "Repent — μετανοειτε. This was the matter of the preaching. The verb μετανοεω is either compounded of μετα, after, and νοειν to understand, which signifies that, after hearing such preaching, the sinner is led to understand, that the way he has walked in was the way of misery, death, and hell."5 

Blue Letter Bible: "The Hebrew word 'נָחַם' (nâcham) has several meanings, depending on the context:
To be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent:This usage refers to feeling remorse or regret for one’s own actions. For example, in the Bible, it is used in passages like Genesis 6:6, where God regrets creating humanity.
It can also mean to change one’s mind or turn away from a previous course of action."6 

For the benefit of Fannin and his followers, I have used the KJV in the quotes below. The concept of repentance from sin is a definite factor in these verses.  

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38).

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; (Acts 3:19).

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; (Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4).

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. (2 Corinthians 7:10). 

I have addressed the further error of "once saved always saved" (OSAS) in a previous post.7

1. Strong's Greek: 3340. μετανοέω (metanoeó) -- to change one's mind or purpose (biblehub.com)
2. Bible Dictionary: Repent (biblehub.com)
3. G3340 - metanoeō - Strong's Greek Lexicon (esv) (blueletterbible.org)
4. Matthew 3:2 Commentaries: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (biblehub.com)
5. Matthew 3 Clarke's Commentary (biblehub.com)
6. H5162 - nāḥam - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (rsv) (blueletterbible.org)
7. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED? (bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com)

WARREN MCGREW (IDOL KILLER): PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (7)

Jesus Saved us from God? - PSA Examined (youtube.com)

This is the seventh and final episode in a series of seven videos in which Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi refute the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). They attribute PSA primarily to Augustine of Hippo (AD354-430), followed by Anselm of Canterbury (AD 1033-1109), and the 16th-century Reformers.  

The first fifteen PSA claims (see previous posts).

1. Adam as mankind's federal head transmits the guilt of his sin to all mankind. (Anselm)
2. Because of Original Sin mankind is now totally depraved. (Anselm)
3. Even Infants, innocent of personal sin, are guilty of Original Sin. (Anslem)
4. The sin of Adam infinitely offends God because the gravity of the offense depends on the worth of the one offended. (Anselm)
5. All sin is to be understood as a debt we owe God for the crime of having dishonored him. (Anselm)
6. Even Infants owe this debt. (Anslem)
7. In the Old Testament era, God insists that this debt be paid by shedding an innocent animal's blood. (Appeasement school)
8. God could have redeemed man by the simple act of wiling it... (false claim)
9. ...but God cannot forgive sin without first punishing the sinner. (Anselm)
10. Not only must the redemption mirror the fall, but it must also be as painful as possible since the fall was easy. (Anselm)
11. Only the death of God-man is worthy to serve as a recompense to God for his offended honor. (Anselm)
12. Christ becomes incarnate so his humanity can suffer as a substitute for us. (Anselm)
13. God pours out His wrath on Christ pretending that Christ is we, the ones who actually deserve punishment (Appeasement School)
14. On the cross, Christ becomes literal sin and a literal curse. (Appeasement School)
15. God's eyes are too holy to look upon sin, so the Father turns his back on Christ, abandoning him. (Appeasement School)

16. Christ dies on the cross as an unblemished sacrifice and thereby removes the need for further sacrifice by appeasing God's wrath once and for all. (Appeasement School)

Vendredi: "Claim 16 was not found in the medieval system of atonement, but it is something that the modern exponents of the atonement teach.. Aquinas briefly touches upon this in the Law Section of the Summa Theologica and he offers a surprisingly weak defense of this."

PSA is not limited to "modern exponents of the atonement". It can be demonstrated unequivocally that the Church Fathers affirmed PSA.

Vendredi's objection re "literal sin" Claim 14. (8:00 mark) The false doctrine that Christ became "literal sin" is a minority view and is unrepresentative of the "Atonement School".  RC Sproul's grotesque depiction of Jesus on the cross goes beyond the scriptures. (Proverbs 30:6). In a controversial sermon, false teacher and scam artist Todd White voiced some equally blasphemous depictions of Jesus, claiming that He "became every terrible sin in the world" during His crucifixion. (2 Corinthians 5:21).1  There was widespread condemnation of White's "sermon" across the board.

Vendredi's objection (9:00 mark): Vendredi challenges the common belief that Christ fulfills the Old Testament scapegoat ritual. (Leviticus 16:7ff.). Vendredi: "Wrong day and wrong animal! Passover is not Yom Kippur and sheep are not goats." 

 

Vendredi: "Christ fulfills the Passover Lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). He does not fulfill the sacrifices that were instituted after the golden calf incident in Exodus 32. He fulfills the pre-golden calf sacrifices, specifically the iconoclastic sacrifice of the Passover Lamb."   

Vendredi's isolated claim that Jesus does not fulfill Yom Kippur is contrary to Orthodox Christianity. His argument goes as follows: The people who offered up the sacrifices are the Aaronic Order. To qualify to offer sacrifices it was necessary to be from the tribe of Levi, the clan of Kohath, the family of Aaron. If Jesus represents the animals offered by the Levites he would be born into that tribe. However, Jesus is the Lion of Judah and comes from the tribe of Judah. (Revelation 5:5). Vendredi answers his own question: Jesus is after the Order of Melchizedek, He is not of the Levitical Order. (Hebrews 7:11). To summarize Vendredi's argument: Melchizedek offered up bread and wine, he did not offer up an animal sacrifice when he met Abram at the Valley of Shaveh. (Genesis 14:17-18). Jesus instituted the sacrifice of bread and wine at the Last Supper. Therefore Jesus rejected the temple sacrifices and disassociated himself from animal sacrifices.. (16:00 mark) Response: Melchizedek did not bring an offering; he "brought out" bread and wine for the refreshment of Abram and his soldiers as a friendly gesture. (Genesis 14:18).2 

Keil and Delitzsc: "Melchizedek brings bread and wine from Salem 'to supply the exhausted warriors with food and drink, but more especially as a mark of gratitude to Abram, who had conquered for them peace, freedom, and prosperity.' (Delitzsch)."2 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: "Bread and wine; not for sacrifice to God; for then he had brought forth beasts to be slain, which were the usual and best sacrifices: but partly to show the respect which he bore to Abram, and principally to refresh his weary and hungry army, according to the manner of those times. See Deu 23:3,4 25:18 Judges 8:5,6,15 1 Samuel 17:17.2     

Vendredi's proposal: Animal sacrifices were rejected by Jesus due to the disruption He caused during the cleansing of the temple, allegedly on three separate occasions, i.e. three years running, when animal sacrifices were prevented. (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:13-16). This proposal is highly speculative and unrealistic. Firstly, the suggestion that Jesus cleansed the temple three years running is conjecture. Secondly, Jesus' actions were not a rejection of animal sacrifices, he condemned the unethical practices of the sellers. (John 2:16). Furthermore, the scriptures indicate that the cleansing of the temple was an isolated incident. It is not likely that Jesus prevented the sellers from trading for an extended period. It is possible that the sellers recovered and returned to the temple courts, or alternatively they withdrew and continued their trade outside the temple courts. We simply do not have the information and Vendredi's eiesgesis clutches at straws.   

The Orthodox view is that all the Old Testament sacrifices typified Jesus Christ. The primary representation of Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God. (John 1:29). Expositors agree that both the Passover and Yom Kippur are distinct events that foreshadow Jesus Christ. This position is corroborated by the Church Fathers.

The Epistle of Barnabus - Chapter VII - Fasting, And The Goat Sent Away, Were Types Of Christ.

"Take two goats of goodly aspect, and similar to each other, and offer them. And let the priest take one as a burnt-offering for sins. And what should they do with the other? "Accursed," says He, "is the one." Mark how the type of Jesus now comes out."3  

Justin Martyr - Chapter XL - Dialogue With Trypho

"And the two goats which were ordered to be offered during the fast, of which one was sent away as the scape [goat], and the other sacrificed, were similarly declarative of the two appearances of Christ.."4 

Tertullian - Chapter XIV - Conclusion. Clue To The Error Of The Jews.

"So, again, I will make an interpretation of the two goats which were habitually offered on the fast-day. Do not they, too, point to each successive stage in the character of the Christ who is already come?"5

17. Thus Christ's death ransoms us from the wrath of God. (Anselm)

Proof texts for this claim: Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28;1 Timothy 2:5-6.

Cambridge Bible: "45. and to give his life] We have here one of the early intimations of the mysterious purport of the Passion, that the Redeemer was about to give His life as a ransom for many (1 Timothy 2:6). The word translated 'ransom' only occurs here and in the parallel, Matthew 20:28. Wyclif renders it “and yyue his soule, or lyf, redempcioun, or ayen-biyng, for manye.” The three great circles of images, which the Scriptures employ when they represent to us the purport of the death of Christ, are (a) a sin-offering, or propitiation (1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10); (b) reconciliation (= at-one-ment) with an offended friend (Romans 5:11; Romans 11:15; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19); (c), as here, redemption from slavery (Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14)." 6 

Vendredi: "To whom is the ransom paid?  There are three candidates: death, Satan or God." 

Vendredi proposes "None of the above". He presents a little-known definition of "ransom" based on the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus. Vendredi: "The word ransom (lutron) is not being used in the lexical sense. It is being used in a stipulative sense to mean rescue. God says that He will redeem Israel from Egypt. (Exodus 6:6) The word redeem in the Septuagint is the Greek word lutrosome (?) which is the verbal form of the word lutron. I am unable to determine where Vendredi sourced this form of lutron. The forms and transliterations of λύτρον are: λύτρα λύτροις λυτρον λύτρον λύτρου λύτρων lutron lytron lýtron. Gregory of Nazianzus' writings are extensive, and unfortunately, Vendredi did not give a specific reference.7 In any event this is an obscure citation that does not correspond to lexical definitions.

Thayers Greek Lexicon: "λύτρον, λύτρου, τό (λύω), the Sept. passim for כֹּפֶר, גְּאֻלָּה, פִּדְיון, etc.; the price for redeeming, ransom (paid for slaves, Leviticus 19:20; for captives, Isaiah 45:13; for the ransom of a life, Exodus 21:30; Numbers 35:31f): ἀντί πολλῶν, to liberate many from the misery and penalty of their sins, Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45. (Pindar, Aeschylus, Xenophon, Plato, others.)"8 

Go, speak to the children of Israel, saying, I am the Lord; and I will lead you forth from the tyranny of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from bondage, and I will ransom (וְגָאַלְתִּ֤י ve·ga·'al·ti) you with a high arm, and great judgment. (Exodus 6:6). (Brenton's Septuagint Translation)

In response to Vendredi's "rescue from Egypt view", the Hebrew gâ’al encompasses considerably more than the idea of rescue, gâ’al is to resume a lapsed claim or right.9

Cambridge Bible: "redeem] The proper sense of the Heb. gâ’al is to resume a claim or right which has lapsed, to reclaim, re-vindicate: it is thus used Leviticus 25:25ff. of the ‘redemption’ of a house or field, after it has been sold (cf. Jeremiah 32:7-8), and in the expression, the ‘avenger (gô’çl) of blood,’ properly the one who vindicates the rights of a murdered man: it is also often used metaphorically of deliverance from oppression, trouble, death, &c., as here, Exodus 15:13, Genesis 48:16, Hosea 13:14, Psalm 103:4, and especially in II Isaiah, of Yahweh’s reclaiming His people from exile in Babylon, Isaiah 41:14; Isaiah 43:1, &c. On the syn. pâdâh, see on Exodus 13:13."10

The overwhelming consensus is that Christ offered Himself to God as a ransom. 

The Old Testament sacrifices were types of Jesus' sacrifice and were offerings to God. (Exodus 30:11-12; Numbers 8:12; Jeremiah 31:10-11; Hosea 13:14; Isaiah 53:10-11 etc.)

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Hebrews 9:12-15).

Vendredi attempts to convince his audience that the second-century document The Epistle to Diognetus also refers to "rescue". The context of the passage is self-evident and needs no further comment!

The Epistle to Diognetus - Chapter 9

"But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!"11

Vendredi has given it his best shot, but ultimately he has failed to obliterate the doctrine of PSA. His utilization of unrepresentative examples, spurious claims, selective information, obscure references and illogical argumentation is rife throughout this series. Vendredi's arguments fail the test of both the scriptures and the requirements of scholarly research. Initially, I was willing to give Warren McGrew the benefit of the doubt. However, as I progressed through this series my impression was that he played the part of a useful idiot rather than someone genuinely seeking after truth. (1 John 4:1; Romans 16:17).

1. Todd White Jesus Became EVERY Filthy Sin on the Cross Including... (youtube.com)
2. Genesis 14:18 Commentaries: And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. (biblehub.com)
3. The Epistle of Barnabas (translation Roberts-Donaldson) (earlychristianwritings.com)
4. Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Roberts-Donaldson) (earlychristianwritings.com)
5. Tertullian (Roberts-Donaldson) (earlychristianwritings.com)
6. Mark 10:45 Commentaries: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (biblehub.com)
7. NEW ADVENT: Search
8. Thayer's Greek: 3083. λύτρον (lutron) -- a ransom (biblehub.com)
9. Strong's Hebrew: 1350. גָּאַל (gaal) -- to redeem, act as kinsman (biblehub.com)
10. Exodus 6 Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (biblehub.com)
11. CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to Diognetus (Mathetes) (newadvent.org)

WARREN MCGREW (IDOL KILLER): PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (6)

Most Sinful Man In The Universe - PSA Examined (youtube.com)

This is the sixth in a series of seven videos in which Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi refute the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). They attribute PSA primarily to Augustine of Hippo (AD354-430), followed by Anselm of Canterbury (AD 1033-1109), and the 16th-century Reformers.  

The first twelve PSA claims (see previous posts).

1. Adam as mankind's federal head transmits the guilt of his sin to all mankind. (Anselm)
2. Because of Original Sin mankind is now totally depraved. (Anselm)
3. Even Infants, innocent of personal sin, are guilty of Original Sin. (Anslem)
4. The sin of Adam infinitely offends God because the gravity of the offense depends on the worth of the one offended. (Anselm)
5. All sin is to be understood as a debt we owe God for the crime of having dishonored him. (Anselm) 6. Even Infants owe this debt. (Anslem)
7. In the Old Testament era, God insists that this debt be paid by shedding an innocent animal's blood. 
8. God could have redeemed man by the simple act of willing it.. (false claim)
9. ...but God cannot forgive sin without first punishing the sinner. (Anselm)
10. Not only must the redemption mirror the fall, but it must also be as painful as possible since the fall was easy. (Anselm)
11. Only the death of God-man is worthy to serve as a recompense to God for his offended honor. (Anselm)
12. Christ becomes incarnate so his humanity can suffer as a substitute for us. (Anselm)

13. God pours out His wrath on Christ pretending that Christ is we, the ones who actually deserve punishment. (Appeasement School)  

The primary proof text for claim 13 is Isaiah 53:4-6.

Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:1-12).

Isaiah 53:4 is cited in Matthew 8:17. Vendredi takes the limited view that the entire passage refers to the Restored-Icon Model. While Isaiah 53:4 refers to Jesus' healing ministry, verses 5-6 cannot refer to anything other than the crucifixion. 

And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases. (Matthew 8:14-17). 

Meyer: Matthew 8:17. This expelling of demons and healing of diseases were intended, in pursuance of the divine purposes, to be a fulfilment of the prediction in Isaiah 53:4. Observe that this prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus in another sense also, viz. by His atoning death (John 1:29; 1 Peter 2:24). 

Barnes: "The word translated 'griefs' in Isaiah, and 'infirmities' in Matthew, means properly, in the Hebrew and Greek, 'diseases of the body.' In neither does it refer to the disease of the mind, or to sin. To bear those griefs is clearly to bear them away, or to remove them. This was done by his miraculous power in healing the sick. The word rendered 'sorrows' in Isaiah, and 'sicknesses' in Matthew, means 'pain, grief, or anguish of mind.' To 'carry' these is to sympathize with the sufferers; to make provision for alleviating those sorrows, and to take them away. This he did by his precepts and by his example; and the cause of all sorrows - 'sin' - he removed by the atonement."

Vincent Word Studies: "Bare (ἐβάστασεν) This translation is correct. The word does not mean 'he took away,' but 'he bore,' as a burden laid upon him.1 

     

Isaiah 53 is also cited in 1 Peter 2:19-25. Vendredi claims this passage refers to the Moral Exemplar Model (the Moral-Example Theory proposed by Pelagius). Pelagius (354-420 AD) was condemned as a heretic due to his alleged denial of the sinful condition of mankind and his assertion that sinless perfection was attainable. Jesus' suffering did of course leave us a powerful example. However, the Moral-Example Theory, taken in isolation is inadequate and fails to acknowledge the vicarious aspect of Jesus' death. The death of Jesus Christ has far deeper significance. A moral exemplar cannot die for our sins. (Mathew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). 

For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (1 Peter 2:19-25).

Vendredi: "It is an abomination for the righteous to suffer for the unrighteous. (Proverbs 17:15,26,24:24)." Ultimately God's mercy prevails over judgement. (James 2:13). Jesus laid down His own life voluntarily, it was not taken from Him. (John 10:18). The heart of the gospel is the call for sinners to repent and trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. (1 Peter 3:18; John 15:13). Without the cross there is no mechanism for the remission of sin because sin cannot go unpunished. The Book of Proverbs embodies practical and speculative wisdom about the world. Proverbs does not address God's solution for the deep sin problem that plagues humanity.

14. On the cross, Christ becomes literal sin and a literal curse. (Appeasement School)

It is important to note that there are different understandings of PSA within Western Christianity. No doubt we all agree with the main tenets of PSA: Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners; God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ and he bore the punishment that we deserve. However, there are differences in specifics even within the Reformed camp itself. 

Vendredi's objection: Given the testimony of the scriptures, it is impossible to reconcile God's holy and unchanging nature with the assertion that Jesus became a literal curse and literal sin. (Hebrews 7:26; Hebrews 13:8). 

All who rely on works of the law are under a curse. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Now it is clear that no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” The law, however, is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (Galatians 3:10-14; cf Deuteronomy 21:23).

Having become a curse for us: Jesus became cursed on our behalf; He stood in our place and took upon Himself the curse we deserved. 

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The teaching that Jesus became "literal sin" is promoted by RC Sproul, John MacArthur and others. However, a number of expositors take a different view. Expressions such as: Jesus was clothed with mankind's sin; mankind's sin was imputed to Him; Jesus identified with man's sin; Jesus was the representative of sin; sin-bearer (vicariously); Jesus became sin in the abstract i.e. the penalties of sin were laid on Christ on our behalf.2

Cambridge: "He made Him to be sin, i.e. appointed Him to be the representative of sin and sinners, treated Him as sin and sinners are treated (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:15). He took on Himself to be the representative of Humanity in its aspect of sinfulness (cf. Romans 8:3; Php 2:7) and to bear the burden of sin in all its completeness. Hence He won the right to represent Humanity in all respects, and hence we are entitled to be regarded as God’s righteousness (which He was) not in ourselves, but in Him as our representative in all things."2

Ellicott: forensic theories of the atonement, of various types, might be and have been developed. It is characteristic of St. Paul that he does not so develop it. Christ identified with man’s sin: mankind identified with Christ’s righteousness—that is the truth, simple and yet unfathomable, in which he is content to rest.2

Vincent Word Studies: "Not a sin-offering, nor a sinner, but the representative of sin. On Him, representatively, fell the collective consequence of sin, in His enduring 'the contradiction of sinners against Himself' Hebrews 12:3), in His agony in the garden, and in His death on the cross."2

Problematically, those who over-develop Galatians 3:13 go too far and end up with grotesque portrayals of Jesus Christ such as those depicted in the RC Sproul clips presented by Vendredi. (18:00 mark)

15. God's eyes are too holy to look upon sin, so the Father turns his back on Christ, abandoning him. (Appeasement School)

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. (Matthew 27:45-50 cf. Psalm 22:1).

Matthew 27:46 is a quotation from Psalm 22:1. The entire psalm speaks of unequaled spiritual struggle and is a clear reference to the crucifixion. Based on Psalm 22:24, it is difficult to agree with MacArthur and others who teach the doctrine of divine abandonment i.e. the doctrine that God the Father abandoned Jesus on the cross.3  ..and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him. Immediately afterward, Jesus cried out what are believed to be His last words: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46). If the Father had intervened and delivered Jesus from the cross, then the entire plan of salvation would have been compromised. I do not doubt that the crucifixion was unimaginably painful not only for the Son, but also for the Father, who held back and allowed His Son to suffer.  

The arguments presented by Vendredi and McGrew against PSA are a direct attack on the gospel. McGrew describes Idol Killer as "A ministry dedicated to the cause of destroying sacred cows for the cause of Christ". As I have progressed through this series I have become increasingly convinced that Idol Killer is a ministry dedicated to destroying the gospel!

1. Matthew 8:17 Commentaries: This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES." (biblehub.com)
2. 2 Corinthians 5:21 Commentaries: He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (biblehub.com)
3. The Doctrine of Divine Abandonment (gty.org)

WARREN MCGREW (IDOL KILLER): PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (5)

Only The Blood of a Godman - PSA Examined (youtube.com)

This is the fifth in a series of seven videos in which Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi refute the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). They attribute PSA primarily to Augustine of Hippo (AD354-430), followed by Anselm of Canterbury (AD 1033-1109), and the 16th-century Reformers.  

The first seven PSA claims (see previous posts).

1. Adam as mankind's federal head transmits the guilt of his sin to all mankind. (Anselm)
2. Because of Original Sin mankind is now totally depraved. (Anselm)
3. Even Infants, innocent of personal sin, are guilty of Original Sin. (Anslem)
4. The sin of Adam infinitely offends God because the gravity of the offense depends on the worth of the one offended. (Anselm)
5. All sin is to be understood as a debt we owe God for the crime of having dishonored him. (Anselm) 6. Even Infants owe this debt. (Anslem)
7. In the Old Testament era, God insists that this debt be paid by shedding an innocent animal's blood. 

8. God could have redeemed man by the simple act of willing it.. (?)

Vendredi: "Claim number 8 tells us God could have cancelled mankind's debt by any means He had chosen to. The big proof text is Psalm 135:6: 'Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and in all deep places.'"

Not for the first time, Vendredi misquotes and misrepresents the source material he allegedly quotes from. It is my contention that claim 8 does not exist within Anselm's Cur Deus Homo. In his dialogue with his foil Boso in Chapter XII Anselm introduces the concept: "Whether it were proper for God to put away sins by compassion alone, without any payment of debt." Anselm does not quote Psalm 135:6, nor does he entertain the idea that God could have cancelled mankind's debt by the simple act of willing it. His answer is unequivocal.. "It is not proper for God to pass over sin unpunished." 

Anselm. Let us return and consider whether it were proper for God to put away sins by compassion alone, without any payment of the honor taken from him. 

Boso. I do not see why it is not proper. 

Anselm. To remit sin in this manner is nothing else than not to punish; and since it is not right to cancel sin without compensation or punishment; if it be not punished, then is it passed by undischarged. 

Boso. What you say is reasonable. 

Anselm. It is not fitting for God to pass over anything in his kingdom undischarged. Boso. If I wish to oppose this, I fear to sin. Anselm. It is, therefore, not proper for God thus to pass over sin unpunished.."1  

Fictitious claim number 8 gives Vendredi a suitable backdrop for his presentation of the "Restored Icon Model" i.e. the scenario that God has indeed freely forgiven mankind without penal substitution, allegedly taught by Gregory of Nazianzus. 

Vendredi describes the restored icon model as follows:

"God created humankind as an immortal icon of Himself, but Satan smashes the icon thereby destroying our immortality. According to Nazianzus, the second person of the Trinity becomes incarnate in the man Jesus of Nazareth, and in that hypostatic union, He unites to His divinity all the shattered pieces of the mosaic. In other words, He takes all the components of our human nature and attaches it to the divinity thereby restoring the restored icon.. The human nature has to be united to the divine nature to be healed as well..  the human nature is mortal.. So Christ has to come and He has to attach our mortal nature to Himself. So He takes death unto Himself.. Hebrews 2:14-15 - Death is the work of the devil. That was his destruction of the icon.. also in 1 John 3:8.. Jesus of Nazareth is a hypostatic union of a divine will and a human will. That seems to be indicated in Matthew 26:39 when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane.."

Vendredi's selection bias comes into play yet again. Critically, Vendredi fails to point out that Gregory of Nazianzus also stated that Christ's submission to the Father's will involved taking the form of a servant, bearing our sins, and ultimately redeeming us. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 30, paragraph 5-6: "as for my sake He was called a curse, Who destroyed my curse; and sin, who takes away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account.."2 

Themelios: "Writing in the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus16—again, a giant in the defense of orthodoxy frequently labelled the Trinitarian theologian17—was a staunch proponent of ransom language when discussing Christ’s atonement yet distanced himself from the view that his sacrifice was a price paid to Satan.3  

Vendredi draws attention to William Lane Craig's model of the hypostatic union which is the denial of Jesus’ possession of both a human soul and a human will. These are the heresies of Monothelitism and 

Apollinarianism. While Craig is an influential proponent of PSA, there are significant problems associated with his theology that I was unaware of when I quoted him in my previous post.* The concept of Christ’s humanity is profound and central to Christian theology. The orthodox doctrine of the hypostatic union was adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The creed asserted two distinct natures, human and divine, and affirmed the one person of Jesus Christ.4 I fully endorse this doctrine based on a number of scriptures, including Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemane: "..nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39 cf. Luke 22:42; John 1:1; 5:30; John 6:38; Hebrews 4:15 vs James 1:13. Orthodox soteriology depends on the belief that Christ had to become fully human to share his full divinity with humanity. Jesus is the Word incarnate: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.. (John 1:14). 

Vendredi and McGrew lost no time in seizing the opportunity made by Craig's heresy to take a further swipe at PSA. 

Vendredi: "Frankly, if you believe in PSA, the fine details of the hyperstatic union matter not at all.. All that matters is that Jesus had a physical body with blood in it so that God the Father in his wrath can spill the blood..  In PSA, Jesus of Nazareth is really nothing more than a bag of blood that is stapled to the second person of the Trinity."  

McGrew: "In PSA it really seems to me that the incarnation has hardly any meaning or merit to it other than just to make a bloody piñata.."   

These horrible depictions of the crucifixion do not reflect the true picture of PSA, and as far as I know, those who teach PSA do not hold such views. The suffering of Jesus Christ in the flesh is a crucial part of the atonement that prompts our sense of wonder and gratitude. 

Vendredi: "His human blood is like ours, it's a blood that has been fused to divinity but it's not magic. Its not supernatural, it is human blood just like His body is a human body. We are saved precisely because Jesus had human blood.."

For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. (Leviticus 17:14). Jesus was fully human and yet he was without sin. (1 Peter 2:22; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15). However, there was something different about Jesus' blood. Unless we destroy the doctrine of the virgin birth, we must acknowledge that Jesus was conceived by/through the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18-25). Jesus' blood type is the subject of much debate and speculation given that we all inherit our genetic blood type from both our parents. Jesus' unique blood type is therefore a matter of great significance theologically. Jesus Himself referred to the importance of his blood in the institution of the Lord's Supper, stating that his blood is "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28).

Family Education: "ABO blood type is an inherited trait. Each person carries two genes, or alleles, for this trait. One ABO allele is inherited from the father, and the other is inherited from the mother. Therefore, both parents influence the blood group of their baby."5 

After His resurrection, Jesus' body consisted of "flesh and bones". (Luke 24:39). There is no blood in Jesus' body presently because His blood was poured out for our sins upon the cross. Note that animal sacrifices were drained of blood, and the consumption of blood was forbidden in the Old Testament. (Leviticus 3:17,7:26,17:10-14; Deuteronomy 12:15-16,20-24. The prohibition of blood is a universal precept that was enjoined not only upon Israel, but it was prohibited before the Mosaic Law. The consumption of blood is also prohibited in the New Testament. (Genesis 9:4 cf. Acts 15:20,21:25).6  It is reasonable to conclude that Jesus' blood was quite literally the currency that made atonement for sin. Anyone who claims that Jesus' blood is not special is in error.   

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Hebrews 9:22).

9. ...but God cannot forgive sin without first punishing the sinner.

Having debunked Vendredi's claim 8 as non-existent within Cur Deus Homo, the correct view is that claim 9 reflects Anselm's original and unequivocal position: "It is not proper for God to pass over sin unpunished." 

Vendredi: "If you can't forgive someone until you first punish him, and if you can't forgive a debt unless you first collect the debt elsewhere then it's not forgiveness." 

Vendredi's proof texts are three parables: the two debtors (Luke 7:41-42), the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), and the unforgiving servant. (Matthew 18:23-34).

Vendredi's claim that the above parables destroy the notion of forgiveness is a further example of his selection bias. (Proverbs 11:3). In each of the parables above, sinners are freely forgiven, with the proviso that the person forgiven practices mercy towards others. (Matthew 6:15). In the case of the prodigal son, the Father had already suffered a substantial loss. God doesn't punish the sinner, He pays Himself through the God-man Jesus Christ. Parables were a powerful teaching method employed by Jesus to convey different aspects of spiritual truth. These short, fictitious stories wrap deep meanings in everyday scenarios, making complex ideas accessible. When we quote alleged proof texts selectively the inevitable result is inaccuracy. The truth is determined by considering all the scriptures, not selective parts of it. The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever. (Psalm 119:160).

And the Word {Jesus Christ} became flesh and dwelt among us, (John 1:1,14).

He himself [Jesus Christ] bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24).

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.. (1 Peter 3:18).

McGrew brings another example that allegedly denies PSA: Isaiah 55:7 ..let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.  McGrew: "There is no debt collection, there is no alternative source - it is simply 'come and be forgiven'. Scripture doesn't say that some other innocent man, the righteous man would have to bear his burden for him.."  At the time of the crucifixion, the sacrificial system was in place in which the blood of animals made atonement for sins. (see my previous post). Isolated verses held up as proof texts fail to take into account the whole counsel of God.. (Acts 20:27).

Between them, McGrew and Vendredi demolish the very gospel itself with these perverse points.

10. Not only must the redemption mirror the fall, but it must also be as painful as possible since the fall was easy.

Vendredi breaks down Anselm's tenth claim into two clauses:

Clause 1: The atonement must mirror the fall and must be as painful as possible because the fall in the Garden of Eden was as easy as possible. 

Clause 2: Therefore since the fall at the knowledge of good and evil was so easy, the atonement at the cross of Christ must be as painful as possible.  

Anselm: "If man sinned with ease, is it not fitting for him to atone with difficulty? And if he was overcome by the devil in the easiest manner possible, so as to dishonor God by sinning against him, is it not right that man, in making satisfaction for his sin, should honor God by conquering the devil with the greatest possible difficulty? Is it not proper that, since man has departed from God as far as possible in his sin, he should make to God the greatest possible satisfaction?"7 

The ease with which Adam and Eve sinned compared with the difficulty of the cross is arguably the wrong focus. Jesus Christ the God-man came to address the massive repercussions of the fall. The scriptures juxtapose Adam's disobedience with Christ's obedience. (Romans 5:19-21). Adam was not deceived; he sinned knowing the magnitude of the sin he was committing. (Genesis 3:6; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Timothy 2:14). Anselm's tenth claim is not biblical and does not determine the doctrine of PSA. Believers are not called to theorize. (1 John 4:1).

11. Only the death of God-man is worthy to serve as a recompense to God for his offended honor.

Vendredi: "This is the claim of propitiation.. the only commodity viable enough to recompense God for his offended honour and to render Him finally once and for all propitious toward mankind is the shed blood of a God-man." 

Proof text:  ..whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (Romans 3:25 cf. 1 John 2:2,4:10). 

Vendredi's definition of atonement  "..to take some one who is not well disposed toward you and make him well disposed toward you by means of atonement." This definition is correct as far as it goes, but it conveniently excludes the specific biblical definition. 

Strongs definition: "ἱλαστήριον (a) a sin offering, by which the wrath of the deity shall be appeased; a means of propitiation, (b) the covering of the ark, which was sprinkled with the atoning blood on the Day of Atonement."8 

Vendredi: " How do you translate ἱλαστήριον as atonement, as propitiation or mercy seat.?"    

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16). This verse does not mention atonement and Vendredi quotes it to deny propitiation and suggests that Jesus is our mercy seat without propitiation.

Vendredi: "God the Father sent God the Son because God the Father was already propitiously inclined toward us.. If God  sent His Son because He already loved us then He doesn't need propitiation. 

The obvious flaw in Vendredi's argument is that the mercy seat was sprinkled with atoning blood on the Day of Atonement. Romans 3:24-25 is an allusion to the mercy seat which was a type of Jesus Christ. There is no escaping the fact that blood is necessary for atonement in both the Old and New Testamens. (Hebrews 9:22).

And he [Aaron] shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the mercy seat on the east side, and in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses. (Leviticus 16:14-16).

12. Christ becomes incarnate so his humanity can suffer as a substitute for us.

Vendredi "The Son of God becomes incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth so that His human nature can suffer and die as our substitute." 

Vendredi claims a contradiction between the following two verses of scripture. 

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.. (1 Peter 3:18).

Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. (Ephesians 4:32).

Vendredi: "If God for Christ's sake forgave us by wacking Christ, and if we are supposed to forgive the way God did, then that means that before we can prefer forgiveness to someone we first have to wack an innocent party.. How can finite human nature pay off an infinite debt?" 

This is perverse reasoning and is similar to the straw man arguments and misrepresentations of the atonement by those who propagate the myth of redemptive violence. Those who deny PSA are committing slander against God Himself since they deny His justice and righteousness. The cross demonstrates God's mercy and forgiveness without compromising His holiness. 

Jerry Shepherd: "The movement which is currently masquerading as 'The' cruciform hermeneutic has actually abandoned reading the entirety of Scripture through a Christocentric and cruciform lens. Two of its main tenets are that (1) God is completely nonviolent, and (2) the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is untrue because that would imply there is violence in God. However, unlike previous Christological and crucicentric readers, it fails to deal with the entirety of Scripture, and it fails to deal with the whole Christ, the totus Christus. It claims to be reading Scripture through the lens of Christ and through the cross of Christ, but it fails on both counts, because it does not deal with the entirety of what Christ said and did, or with the entirety of what Scripture says this Christ will do. It fails to deal in any responsible way with the many places in which Christ himself talks about the retributive judgment of God, and eliminates any reference in Christ’s words to any kind of violent action by God, only by employing special pleading, bizarre and highly implausible readings, and twisting Christ’s words beyond the bounds of any proper responsible hermeneutic. Furthermore, it seriously truncates the meaning of the cross of Christ, which is not only a means of redemption, but also serves as a criterion of judgment."9  

The infinite nature of the God-man Jesus Christ enabled Him to pay the infinite penalty owed by sinful humanity. The heart of the gospel lies in the unique aspect of Jesus' nature being fully human and fully divine. Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross was not a mere human death at the hands of the Romans.

1. ST (saintsbooks.net) Chapter XI, p27.
2. Atonement Sources EC Gregory of Nazianzus — The Anástasis Center (anastasiscenter.org)
3. Appeasement of a Monster God? A Historical and Biblical Analysis of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - The Gospel Coalition
4. Two natures of Jesus | Theopedia
5. What Blood Type Will My Baby Have? A Genetic Explanation - FamilyEducation
6. Blood (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)
7. ST (saintsbooks.net) Chapter XI, p67.
8. Strong's Greek: 2435. ἱλαστήριον (hilastérion) -- propitiatory (biblehub.com)
9. There Is No Such Thing as “The” Cruciform Hermeneutic | The Recapitulator

Further Links

Appeasement of a Monster God? A Historical and Biblical Analysis of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - The Gospel Coalition
*William Lane Craigs 3 most dangerous teachings , part 2 (youtube.com)

WARREN MCGREW (IDOL KILLER): PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (4)

God Demanded Animal Sacrifice For Forgiveness? - PSA Examined (youtube.com)

This is the fourth in a series of seven videos in which Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi refute the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). They attribute PSA primarily to Augustine of Hippo (AD354-430), followed by Anselm of Canterbury (AD 1033-1109), and the 16th-century Reformers.    

In this post, I will demonstrate that the claims made by Paul Vendredi regarding animal sacrifice are unsustainable biblically.

7. Animal Sacrifice

 

Vendredi challenges the proof texts that support the doctrine that the debt owed to God must be paid in blood and describes them as "a product of the Modern Atonement School".      

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. (Leviticus 17:11).

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Hebrews 9:22).

Vendredi submits the astonishing claim that prior to the golden calf incident in Exodus 32, the sacrifices were iconoclasts. He posits that because the Hebrews had been immersed in Egyptian idolatry for 400 years during their sojourn in Egypt, God instituted an object lesson that would break their idolatrous connection to their Egyptian masters. Vendredi also claims that the sacrifices instituted by God in Exodus 32 were a punishment for their idolatry during the golden calf incident. I will debunk this claim below.

The golden calf incident was dealt with swiftly before Moses' second ascension to the summit of Mount Horeb/Sinai (Exodus 32:25-35). Three thousand men were executed by the sons of Levi on Moses' instruction, and the Lord sent a plague on the people. (Exodus 32:25-35). When Moses ascended Mount Sinai for the second time. (Exodus 34:1-2 cf. Exodus 24:1), the words on the second tablets were identical to those written on the first tablets. (Exodus 34:1). In Exodus 34:10 the covenant was renewed and the instructions regarding the covenant, the table, the golden lampstands, the tabernacle, and the sacrifices originally given in Exodus chapters 24-32 were executed in Exodus 34-40). 

Iconoclasm refers to strong opposition to generally accepted beliefs and traditions or the rejection or destruction of religious images as heretical.1  

If God were rejecting animal sacrifices then he would have forbidden them. However, His elaborate instructions prior to the golden calf incident refute the idea of iconoclasm. The scriptures repeatedly refer to the animal sacrifices as "before the Lord" or "to the Lord". (Exodus 29:18,23-26,28,41-42). With the blood of the sin offering of atonement he shall make atonement for it once in the year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD.” (Exodus 30:10).

This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast. Exodus 12:14

When your children ask you, ‘What does this service mean to you?’ you are to reply, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt when He struck down the Egyptians and spared our homes.’ ” (Exodus 12:26-27).    

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29). 

Thomas L Constable notes that the giving of the law was a process: "Structurally the tabernacle account consists of seven acts each introduced by divine speech ("And the LORD said," Exodus 25:1; Exodus 30:11; Exodus 30:17; Exodus 30:22; Exodus 30:34; Exodus 31:1; Exodus 31:12).

Structurally the creation account consists of seven acts each marked by divine speech ("And God said," Genesis 1:3; Genesis 1:6; Genesis 1:9; Genesis 1:14; Genesis 1:20; Genesis 1:24; Genesis 1:26)."2  

Vendredi questions the distinction between the healing of Hebrew lepers and Gentile lepers in the bible. The leper in Mark 1:44 was required to offer the sacrifices required in Leviticus 14:3-7, whereas the prophet instructed Naaman the Syrian to wash in the Jordan seven times. (2 Kings 5:10). This illustration does not strengthen Vendredi's argument that the post-Exodus 32 sacrifices were punitive. These comparisons only illustrate that Israelites were under the Mosaic Law whereas the Gentiles were not. 

Vendredi: "If the sacrifices before the golden calf are iconoclasm, and the sacrifices after the golden calf are punishment, then why does the bible call this atonement? Going back to Leviticus 17:11, 'It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul'." Vendredi misquotes Maimonides: "Maimonides says that any time you hear the word atonement in the Old Testament, you have to understand this to be what he calls 'a gracious ruse'."

Maimonides described the Israelites forty-year sojourn in the wilderness as "a gracious ruse" he did not use this phrase to describe atonement.

TheTorah: "The Torah is clear that God refuses to allow the exodus generation to enter the land as a punishment for their sinful reaction to the spies’ report. Maimonides, however, argues that the punishment was a ruse; God never intended to allow that generation to enter the land."3 

Jewish Virtual Library: "ATONEMENT (Heb. כִּפִֻּרים, kippurim, from the verb כפר). The English word atonement ("at-one-ment") significantly conveys the underlying Judaic concept of atonement, i.e., reconciliation with God. Both the Bible and rabbinical theology reflect the belief that as God is holy, man must be pure in order to remain in communion with Him. Sin and defilement damage the relationship between creature and Creator, and the process of atonement – through *repentance and reparation – restores this relationship.

In the Bible
The basic means of atonement is the sacrificial rite, which functions to purify man from both sin and uncleanliness (e.g., Lev. 5; Pederson, pp. 358–64). In its most spiritualized aspect, however, the sacrificial rite is only the outward form of atonement, and in order for it to be effective, man must first purify himself. This was the constantly reiterated message of the prophets during periods when Israel came close to viewing the atoning efficacy of the rite as automatic (Isa. 1:11–17; see de Vaux , Anc Isr, 454 ff.). Fasting and prayer are also specified as means of atonement (Isa. 58:1–10; Jonah 3; see *Kipper )."4 

Following the destruction of the temple alternative ideas came into play since temple sacrifices were no longer possible. The above article goes on to cite various examples of Rabbinic literature. However, as far as I can ascertain, none of the rabbis deviated from the accepted definition of atonement as reparation for a wrong or injury. 

Strongs: "kaphar: to cover over, pacify, make propitiation= to cover over, pacify, make propitiation."5  

Vendredi points out the apparent "contradiction" between  Hebrews 10:4: and the atoning sacrifice of the blood of bulls and goats in Leviticus 1:4,5:6.

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins..He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:1-4,??)

Old Testament sacrifices were a vital part of Israelite worship. However, the author of Hebrews teaches that they were a shadow of the blood of Jesus Christ which provided ultimate redemption once for all. 

The atonement of inanimate objects

Hebrews 9:22 states that "almost everything" is purified by blood, indicating that all the items utilized in the tabernacle were tainted by sin and required consecration. 

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary: "..references to the atonement of the Tent of Meeting, the temple, the holy place, the sanctuary, and the altar. These take place in the contexts of the ordination of priests ( Exod 29:35-37 ; Lev 8:15 ), God's instructions for the building of the eschatological temple in the later chapters of Ezekiel ( Ezekiel 43:20 Ezekiel 43:26 ; 45:20 ), and the Day of Atonement itself ( Leviticus 16:16 Leviticus 16:18 Leviticus 16:20 ). The need for cleansing the buildings, the altar and the sanctuaries is due to the fact that these are the meeting places of the divine, Holy One with his people. The holiness and purity of God are so emphasized that not only does he and the one who approaches him have to be pure, but even the means of their communication and relationship must be covered by the blood of an atoning sacrifice because of its contamination by sin..

Goats, sheep, and birds are listed among the acceptable animals to be sacrificed, but there were also grain, oil, and drink offerings. Ransom money can provide atonement for the lives of the people; God commands at least one census to be made of the people at which each participant pays the same amount to buy his life and the lives of his family from God, who promises no plague will harm them when they do pay ( Exod 30:11-16 ). Significantly, the money is to be used to support the services of the Tent of Meeting, hence tying it to the sacrifice of blood for atonement, if only in a tangential way. The other nonanimal sacrifices are often equally tied to atonement by blood.6   

A brief summary of Old Testament offerings 

Burnt Offerings (Olah): These were completely consumed by fire on the altar. They symbolized complete surrender to God. The aroma of the burnt offering was pleasing to God (Leviticus 1:1–17).

Grain Offerings (Minchah): These were made from flour, oil, and frankincense. Grain offerings were not burned entirely but were shared between the priests and the worshiper. They represented thanksgiving and dedication (Leviticus 2:1–16).      

Peace Offerings (Shelamim): These were shared meals between the worshiper, the priests, and sometimes the worshiper’s family. They symbolized fellowship, joy, and peace with God (Leviticus 3:1–17).

Sin Offerings (Chattat): These were specifically for unintentional sins. Blood from the sin offering was sprinkled on the altar. The meat was eaten by the priests. It symbolized atonement (Leviticus 4:1–35).

Guilt Offerings (Asham): Similar to sin offerings, guilt offerings were for specific sins. They involved restitution and compensation. The worshiper would make amends for their wrongdoing (Leviticus 5:14–19).

Wave Offerings: These were symbolic gestures where the priest waved a portion of the offering before the Lord. They were associated with peace offerings and consecration (Leviticus 7:30–34).

Drink Offerings (Nesek): These were poured out as a libation alongside other offerings. They were often part of worship during festivals and special occasions (Numbers 15:1–10).

Firstfruits: The first portion of the harvest was dedicated to God. It acknowledged His provision and sovereignty (Exodus 23:19).    

Tithes: A tenth of agricultural produce and livestock was set apart for the Levites and priests. It supported their livelihood and service in the tabernacle/temple (Leviticus 27:30–33).

Red Heifer Sacrifice: This unique offering purified people from ritual impurity caused by contact with a dead body (Numbers 19:1–10).

These sacrifices served as a way for the Israelites to express their devotion, seek forgiveness, and maintain their relationship with God. Each type had specific rules and purposes, emphasizing different aspects of worship and obedience.  

Vendredi: "My contention is that Christ is represented only by the pre-golden calf sacrifices, primarily the Passover Lamb." This contradicts his previous claim that the pre-golden calf sacrifices were iconoclasts. As previously noted, Vendredi's use of this term is very puzzling given its definition.  

The identification of Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God who takes away the world is, I believe, an indispensable doctrine. This was John the Baptist's primary statement concerning Jesus. (John 1:29). However this is not the only picture we have of PSA in the scriptures. We would have to be willfully ignorant to miss the representation of Jesus as a type of the scapegoat.

William Lane Craig makes some very interesting observations regarding the Yom Kippur sacrifice when two goats were offered. (Leviticus 16). He argues that the two goats are two sides of the same coin. A very similar sacrifice of two birds is made in Leviticus for the cleansing of lepers. (Leviticus 14:1-9). One of the birds is killed and its blood is sacrificed while the other bird is released into the air as a symbol that the person is now cleansed and free from uncleanness. Craig observes that the two birds together are an atonement for sin. Similarly, in the Yom Kippur sacrifice, one goat is killed and sacrificed as an offering for sin, while the other is released into the wilderness, bearing the sins, demonstrating these sins have been removed from the people and they are free from them. The laying on of hands on a sacrificial animal applies to every animal sacrifice in Leviticus. (Leviticus 1:4,3:2,8,13,4:15,24-33,16:21). The laying on of hands is an emphatic gesture. Keil and Delitzsch:"..to judge from the verb סמך to lean upon, we are to understand a forcible pressure of the hand upon the head of the victim" 7  It is significant that it is not the priest who lays his hand on the animal, but the person making the offering presses his hand forcibly upon the head of the animal himself. This emphatic gesture symbolizes the identification of the worshipper with the animal i.e. the animal suffers the fate the worshipper deserves, namely death as the punishment for his sin. According to Craig, Yom Kippur is a perfect picture of substitutionary death or penal substitution.8   

Wikipedia: "Jesus Christ is seen to have fulfilled all of the biblical 'types'—the High Priest who officiates at the ceremony, the Lord's goat that deals with the pollution of sin and the scapegoat that removes the "burden of sin". Christians believe that sinners who admit their guilt and confess their sins, exercising faith and trust in the person and sacrifice of Jesus, are forgiven of their sins. The sacrifice of these two goats foretells to a degree of what happened when Jesus and Barabbas were presented by Pontius Pilate to the people in Jerusalem. Barabbas (which means son of the father in Aramaic) who was guilty (burdened with sin) was released while Jesus (also the Son of the Father) who was innocent of Sin was presented by the High Priest and was sacrificed by the Romans through crucifixion. Since the second goat was sent away to perish, the word 'scapegoat' has developed to indicate a person who is blamed and punished for the actions of others.9 

Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica    

Vendredi claims that Aquinas' arguments concerning animal sacrifice sound very much like the arguments he has presented. Once again, I am unable to verify this claim.

Summa Theologica Question 102. The causes of the ceremonial precepts

"Reply to Objection 5. The animals which were offered in sacrifice were slain, because it is by being killed that they become useful to man, forasmuch as God gave them to man for food. Wherefore also they were burnt with fire: because it is by being cooked that they are made fit for human consumption. Moreover the slaying of the animals signified the destruction of sins: and also that man deserved death on account of his sins; as though those animals were slain inman's stead, in order to betoken the expiation of sins. Again the slaying of these animals signified the slaying of Christ." 10  

Summa Theoloica Question 48, The Efficiency of Christ's Passion. 

"And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: 'He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'
On the contrary, It is written (1 Peter 1:18): 'You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.' And (Galatians 3:13): "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.' Now He is said to be a curse for us inasmuch as He suffered upon the tree, as stated above (III:46:4). Therefore He did redeem us by His Passion..

..Since, then, Christ's Passion was a sufficient and a superabundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race, it was as a price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations. For the atonement by which one satisfies for self or another is called the price, by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and its penalty, according to Daniel 4:24: "Redeem thou thy sins with alms." Now Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price—Himself—for us. And therefore Christ's Passion is called our redemption."11

I am at a loss to account for Vendredi's scriptural errors and his misrepresentation of Maimonides and Aquinas in any way other than to describe them as spiritual deception. McGrew fully endorses Vendredi's claims, and between them, they literally tear out the heart of the gospel. Mark and avoid these false teachers. (Romans 16:17).

Note: The complex sacrificial system instituted under the Mosaic Law is a vast subject and beyond the scope of this post. 

1. Iconoclast Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
2. Exodus 31:18 - Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary - StudyLight
3. Sin of the Spies: God’s Ruse to Keep Israel in the Wilderness - TheTorah.com
4. Atonement (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)
5. Strong's Hebrew: 3722a. kaphar -- to cover over, pacify, make propitiation (biblehub.com)
6. Atonement - Bible Meaning & Definition - Baker's Dictionary (biblestudytools.com)
7. Leviticus 1 Keil and Delitzsch OT Commentary (biblehub.com)
8. Penal Substitutionary Atonement: With William Lane Craig (youtube.com)
9. Scapegoat - Wikipedia
10. SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The causes of the ceremonial precepts (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 102) (newadvent.org)
11. SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The efficiency of Christ's Passion (Tertia Pars, Q. 48) (newadvent.org)

WARREN MCGREW (IDOL KILLER): PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (3)

Anselm's First 3 Claims - Penal Substitutionary Atonement (youtube.com)

This is the third in a series of seven videos in which Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi refute the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). They attribute PSA primarily to Augustine of Hippo (AD354-430), followed by Anselm of Canterbury (AD 1033-1109), and the 16th-century Reformers.    

Augustine of Hippo's three PSA claims: Original Sin, Total Depravity, and Infant Depravity. 

A number of further claims were added by Anselm:

4. Infinite Offense: the belief that any sin is an infinite offense against the holy God and thus demands an equal reparation.

Anselm argued that the death of the God-man Jesus Christ on the cross was the only rationally intelligible way in which sinful human beings could have been reconciled with God.

Anselm's classic Cur Deus Homo "Why the God-Man?" was hugely influential in the Middle Ages. His satisfaction theory is rooted in the honour/blame culture of medieval feudalism. When Anselm refers to "honour" he refers to the worship and service that every person owes to the Creator. 

Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement briefly summarised:   

* Finite humanity has committed a crime (sin) against infinite God that demands satisfaction. 

* Finite humanity can never make satisfaction for sin against the infinite God and is left in a hopeless condition in which eternal death is inevitable. 

* God's offended "honour and dignity" could only be paid by the God-man Jesus Christ.

* Christ's death on the cross was the only way in which sinful humanity could be reconciled to God.

* Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humanity satisfying the demand of God's honour by his infinite merit. 

 

Vendredi's objection to Anselm's theory is that all men are created equal and that his objective view of "infinite offense" is an artifact of the Middle Ages and is contrary to natural law. Vendredi objects that this view anthropomorphizes God, giving him the human characteristic of a thin-skinned feudal Lord who insists that his honour is restored for the slightest offense. Although Anselm's feudal imagery is archaic and alien to the modern world, we should bear in mind that feudalism was the society in which Anselm was immersed and it provided a natural framework for him to submit his theory. It has been contended by some scholars that Anselms theory is plausible despite its feudal imagery:  Nicholas Cohen: "[RW Southern] argues that 'the feudal image, however unsatisfactory in some of its implications, stood for rationality prevailing against the inroads of self-will and chaos.'10 He further contends that 'Anselm uses feudal imagery because the feudal hierarchy provided an illustration of the order which he found in the universe.' 11 Although Southern seems perfectly content with the feudal imagery, he freely admits that 'all this is capable of expression in entirely non-feudal language.'12 Both Southern and Campbell refer to John McIntyre’s book St. Anselm and His Critics as having successfully made the case that the Cur Deus Homo argument is cogent even in spite of feudal imagery."1  

In his article "Anselm, Irenaus and Recapitulation" Gavin Ortlund debunks Anselm's critics. I have quoted Ortlund's section on Anselm below in its entirety. 

Ortlund: "Anselm’s atonement theology is frequently caricatured as guilt-obsessed, individualistic, and narrowly focused on juridical concepts. But a careful read of Cur Deus Homo (CDH) reveals that Anselm views Christ’s satisfying death within a larger framework of Christ’s entire saving work as restoring human nature. His summary of the argument of CDH in the preface, for example, claims that what is established in Book II of CDH is that 'human nature was established in order that the whole being, both body and soul, should at some time enjoy blessed immortality' and that in order for it to achieve this creational intent, 'it was necessary that everything we believe about Christ should take place.' And then in chapter 1, Anselm sets up the question on which the whole book hangs as: 'given that God is omnipotent, by what necessity and reason did he assume the lowliness and weakness of human nature, in order to restore human nature?' What is striking about these important summary statements early on in the book is not only by the absence of guilt and recompense themes, but also this repeated emphasis on the restoration of human nature, and Christ’s entire incarnate work. In fact, one must get well into the bulk of CDH until one is able to locate a systematic explanation of why Christ’s death was the fitting mechanism for human redemption (one must wait until 2.11; even 2.6, which I take to the climax of the argument, does not focus specifically on Christ’s death). In the earlier sections of CDH, Anselm’s focus is much broader, and bears certain continuities with an Athanasian/Ireneaen theme of recapitulation, in which God’s very assumption of human nature at the Incarnation unites it with divinity and incorruptibility. So he claims, for example, in 1.4: 'It was fitting that just as death entered the human race through the disobedience of a human being, so too life should be restored by the obedience of a human being.' One thinks of Irenaeus’ assertion in Against Heresies V.21.1, 'as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm [of victory] against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death.' Or cf. Anselm’s statement in 1.8: 'There was [not] any degradation of God in his Incarnation; rather, we believe that human nature was exalted.'2 

Vendredi's denial that sin "harms God", or more accurately, "provokes God to anger", is fallacious. The Hebrew word כַּעַס = be angry, be grieved, take indignation, provoke to anger, unto wrath.3 Vendredi: "The prophets are very clear. When you commit a sin the one who's harmed is you and quite possibly people around you.."  He submits Jeremiah 7:18-19 as his proof text for this dubious claim. The context of Jeremiah 7 affirms that sin does offend/provoke God. It is never a good idea to quote bible verses out of context. 

The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. Is it I whom they provoke? declares the LORD. Is it not themselves, to their own shame? Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, my anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched.." “For the sons of Judah have done evil in my sight, declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 7:18-20,30).

Keil and Delitzsch: "But instead of vexing Him (Jahveh) they rather vex themselves, inasmuch as God causes the consequences of their idolatry to fall on their own head. אתם is used reflexively: se ipsos; cf. Ew. 314, c; Gesen. 124, 1, b. For the cause of the shame of their face, i.e., to prepare for themselves the shame of their face, to cover their face with shame; cf. Jeremiah 3:25. - For (Jeremiah 7:20) because of this idolatrous work, the wrath of the Lord will pour itself over the land in the consuming fire of war (cf. Jeremiah 4:4 with Jeremiah 5:17, Nahum 1:6, etc.), so as to cut off men and beasts, trees and fruit."4 

Ultimately, all sin is against God. The Bible contains many references to people confessing, "I have sinned against God" (Exodus 10:16; Joshua 7:20; Judges 10:10; Genesis 39:9). When tempted by Potiphar's wife, Joseph's response was "How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” Similarly, following his sin with Bathsheba, David confessed: "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight.. (Psalm 51:4 cf. 2 Samuel 12:13). 

5. Sin is a Debt: the belief that sin steals honor and glory from God, diminishing Him and thus must be repaid.

The idea that sin is a debt is attested in the New Testament. That is not to say that sin "diminishes" God in His very essence, since He is always the same. (Hebrews 13:18). Rather sin offends/grieves God and separates us from Him.

..and forgive us our debts (ὀφειλήματα), as we also have forgiven our debtors. (Matthew 6:12) 

ὀφειλήματα = a debt, offense, sin.5  

The parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:21-35 was spoken in terms of a debt beyond our capacity to repay.  

Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii,j and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” (Matthew 18:21-35).

Vendredi: "The face value reading of [Malachi 3:8] seems to be that God is some kind of anthropomorphic being who can have stuff robbed from Him.. If you want evidence that this is not to be read than anything more than a literary device of anthropomorphism just go to two verses ahead of what I quoted to you. Go to Malachi 3:6..  If you can rob God. If God can go from a state of having a full pantry to a pilfered pantry, if God can go from a state of honour to a state of dishonour, then God has changed which makes an absurdity of Malachi 3:6.."     

For I the LORD do not change.. Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. (Malachi 3:6,8 cf. Nehemiah 13:10). 

Vendredi's reasoning is that if we perceive that God is being robbed of "stuff" then He has changed and we are diminishing His honour. However, this is impossible since God is unchangeable in His very essence. The Israelite's offence was that they had departed from God's ordinances. (Malachi 3:7). In doing so they had compromised the entire sacrificial system of which tithes and offerings were essential components. By neglecting this obligation, the Israelites were essentially dishonouring God and depriving the Levites of their rightful support. In other words, the Israelites treated God's name dishonourably i.e. they did not give God the honour due to His name. Paul asks the question: "..do you dishonor God?" (Romans 2:23 cf. Isaiah 52:5). Cambridge Bible: " 23. dishonourest] disgracest. The crimes of Jews made their Lord’s 'name to be blasphemed among the Gentiles;' as, alas, the name of Christ is, for exactly similar reasons, often blasphemed among the heathen now."6  In reality God's honour cannot be diminished. 

6. Infants Owe this Debt: the belief that everyone is created owing God for robbing Him of honor.

This is a throwback to Augustine's third claim Infant Depravity, which I addressed in my previous post.

"Augustine incorrectly taught that baptism was necessary for salvation regardless of age. He presupposed that infants, although not guilty of personal sin, still needed to be cleansed from original sin inherited from Adam. Augustine claimed that the sacrament of infant baptism removed the stain of original sin through "the laver of regeneration."4 Augustine introduced the concept of fides aliena (faith of others) i.e. the parents words of faith and penitence were attributed to infants during baptism."7  

The apparent disparity between Jeremiah 32:18 and Jeremiah 31:30

But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30).

You show steadfast love to thousands, but you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them, O great and mighty God, whose name is the LORD of hosts.. (Jeremiah 32:18).

Interestingly the Targum adds, "when they go on to sin after them;''   

Jeremiah 32:18 is an allusion to the Decalogue (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9).

You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9).

  

Ellicott: "Still, the penalty upon them is not final or irreversible. Under whatever disadvantages they are born, they may struggle against them, and lead good lives, and place themselves, even in this world, on a level with those who were born under every favourable circumstance. It is needless to say that, as respects another world, their parents’ iniquities will not be visited on them. 'Each man will bear his own burthen.' 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'”8 

Clarke: "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children - This necessarily implies - if the children walk in the steps of their fathers; for no man can be condemned by Divine justice for a crime of which he was never guilty; see Ezekiel 18."9 

The Calvinist view of an arbitrary God who dishes out His wrath indiscriminately must be rejected if we rightly divide the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15).

 

Conclusion

I can't help thinking that Anselm would have done better without the influence of Augustine. Tragically however he accepted Augustine's distorted claims regarding original sin, total depravity, baptismal regeneration and infant depravity. (1 Corinthians 3:10-15). Anselm also erred in his view of the Virgin Mary: "It is impossible to save one's soul without devotion to Mary and without her protection."10 Nevertheless, despite Anselm's errors and his peculiar style, Cur Deus Homo does find support in the scriptures. 

Bible verses related to penal substitutionary atonement

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (Romans 3:21-25).

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Romans 5:6-9).

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21).

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8).

Surely He took on our infirmities and carried our sorrows; yet we considered Him stricken by God,
struck down and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4-6).

..because He has poured out His life unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors. Yet He bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:12).

1. Microsoft Word - 21Cohen.doc (anselm.edu)
2. Anselm, Irenaeus, and Recapitulation - Truth Unites
3. Strong's Hebrew: 3707. כָּעַס (kaas) -- to be vexed or angry (biblehub.com)
4. Jeremiah 7 Keil and Delitzsch OT Commentary (biblehub.com)
5. Matthew 6:12 Lexicon: 'And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. (biblehub.com)
6. Romans 2 Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (biblehub.com)
7. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: WARREN MCGREW (IDOL KILLER): PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (2) (bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com)
8. Exodus 20 Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (biblehub.com)
9. Exodus 20 Clarke's Commentary (biblehub.com)
10. Quotes On the Necessity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Attaining Salvation – Catholicism Has the Answer

Cur Deus Homo: ST (saintsbooks.net)