CANSWERS TV: JAMES WHITE'S REPONSE TO LEIGHTON (FLAKY) FLOWERS

Pelagianism 101 By Leighton Flowers: Do It Yourself Salvation With Your Free Will & No Power of God

Hardcore Calvinists Rob Zins and Larry Wessels (CAnswersTV) cannot string together any kind of sound theological argument for their aberrant soteriology. In a previous post, I demonstrated that Zins' eisegesis of 2 Peter 3:8-9 is blatantly unsound.1 Wessels has resorted to airing heavyweight James White's response to Leighton Flowers. 

I agree with White that the biblical gospel and the "gospel" of Calvinism (Reformed theology) are different gospels. (2 Corinthians 11:4). Despite my horror of Calvinism, I have to admit that White does have some valid points to make against Flowers, and frankly, in this video, he makes mincemeat out of him. Flowers' analogy of "sovereign choice meats" is nonsensical. Calvinists themselves do not claim to know the reason why some people are allegedly chosen for salvation and others are rejected, and the verb choose ἐκλέγω is definitely not an adjective. Accuracy is everything.

I also agree with White that Flowers flirts with open theists. Monergism: "Leighton Flowers, in advocating for the inclusion of Open Theists within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and local church membership, suggests that we should sympathize with their philosophical struggles and treat them as fellow believers grappling with complex theological issues."2 Flowers gives a platform to false teacher Warren McGrew (Idol Killer), which, in my view, is extremely foolish and dangerous. McGrew and Flowers supposedly disagree on the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. However, Flowers is apparently willing to collaborate with anyone who will join him in what he sees as his epic fight against Calvinism. Apart from these concerning issues, I have heard Flowers openly admit that he is ecumenical! As such, I have rejected Flowers' ministry, and I regard him as intolerably flaky. His lengthy videos are only of interest to those with the time and stamina to sit through hours of interminable rhetoric, some of it as nonsensical as the above. Flower's syrupy policy of being "charitable" and his ready acceptance of those who should be marked and avoided is unbiblical. (Romans 16:17). Flowers doesn't seem to grasp that Christians are required to contend for the faith and shun heretics after the second warning. (Jude 1:3; Titus 3:10).  

White correctly calls out Flowers on his "so too" parallelism. Flowers: "..mankind as represented by Adam in the garden didn't need a fallen sin nature to choose to sin. So too, fallen people don't need God to miraculously give them a new nature in order for them to respond positively to his own appeals to be reconciled through the gospel." 

 
I am struggling to find a meaningful parallel between Adam's choice to sin without a fallen nature and the choice of fallen people to respond positively to the gospel. Both parties make a choice, but there the similarity ends. The obvious parallel is between the entrance of sin through one man, Adam, and the sacrifice of one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:12-20). However, these verses do not justify Flowers' statement regarding human choice. Adam was free to make his own choice to sin in the garden. (Genesis 3:6). In contrast, fallen humanity is born into sin, i.e., prior to conversion, people are resistant to the gospel; as White points out, they are "dead in sin.. slaves to sin".

The divine initiative in salvation is obvious in the scriptures. Flowers' statement appears to circumvent the conviction of the Holy Spirit, leading sinners (hopefully) to the point of accepting the gospel. ..because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. (1 Thessalonians 1:5; cf. Romans 1:16; John 16:8; Acts 2:37,16:14). God the Father is actively at work in people's lives before they are converted. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. (John 6:44). 

My fundamental difference with the Calvinist position is my understanding that being "dead in sin" refers to the separation from God of unregenerate people. Being "dead in sin" means that people are unable to obey God, reform their lives, or do anything meritorious regarding salvation; it does not mean that they cannot believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life. Faith is an aspect of the will that resides in the human soul. Romans 4:5 debunks the false assumption that faith is a work: And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness..

Strongs: "a. (spiritually dead, i. e.) 'destitute of a life that recognizes and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins; inactive as respects doing right': John 5:25; Romans 6:13; Ephesians 5:14; Revelation 3:1; with τοῖς παραπτώμασιν (the dative of cause (cf. Winer's Grammar, 412 (384f))) added, Ephesians 2:1, 5; ἐν (but T Tr WH omit ἐν) τοῖς παραπτοις Colossians 2:13; in the pointed saying ἄφες τούς νεκρούς θάψαι τούς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς, leave those who are indifferent to the salvation offered them in the gospel, to bury thee bodies of their own dead, Matthew 8:22; Luke 9:60."3

Bible Hub: "The Divine Decree is a profound theological concept that underscores God's sovereignty, eternal purpose, and the intricate relationship between divine governance and human agency. It invites believers to trust in God's ultimate plan while recognizing their role in the unfolding of history. Understanding this doctrine can provide comfort and assurance of God's control over all aspects of life and creation."4 

1. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: CALVINISTS ROB ZINS AND LARRY WESSELS UTTER INCOMPETENCE (CANSWERSTV)
2. Rebuttal of Open Theism and Its Inclusion in the SBC by Leighton Flowers |
Monergism Leighton Flowers Says Southern Baptists Were Wrong to Exclude Open Theists
3. Strong's Greek: 3498. νεκρός (nekros) -- Dead, deceased
4. Topical Bible: Divine Decree

CALVINISTS ROB ZINS AND LARRY WESSELS UTTER INCOMPETENCE (CANSWERSTV)

Unpopular Bible Doctrines #1: The Biblical God No One Wants To Know

In this follow-up post, I will expose some of the horrible beliefs of hardcore Calvinists Larry Wessels and Rob Zins that portray God as a monster. In my last post, I demonstrated that Zins' teaching regarding 2 Peter 3:8-9 is incompetent and misrepresents the scriptures. (1 John 4:1). Despite boasting of their thirty-four-year tenure hosting CAnswersTV as "biblical experts, in reality, they have yet to grasp the basics of Koine Greek, elementary hermeneutics and the importance of honest research. Zins proposed that 2 Peter 3:8-9 was addressed to "the reading community" to whom Peter was writing. In other words, Peter was telling the "reading community" that God was not willing for them to perish (ἀπόλλυμι). This is an absurd interpretation of the passage since ἀπόλλυμι implies permanent (absolute) destruction. Below is an excerpt from my previous post exposing Zins' mistranslation of the verb boúlomai as "a command that can be disobeyed".

"Note: Not willing that any should perish; rather, not wishing or desiring (μὴ βουλόμενος). Zins throws an unnecessary spanner into the works by suggesting that boúlomai could mean either 'God's eternal decree' or 'the will of God's command'. In the New Testament, 'entolé' refers to a commandment or directive, often of divine origin. Zins cites 1 Thessalonians 4:3 as an example of God's 'will of command' aka God's 'perceptive will'. For this is the will (θέλημα) of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; Note that Paul used the noun θέλημα in this verse, not the verb boúlomai. 'θέλημα  = will, desire, purpose.'9 The lexical interpretation of boúlomai is '..to plan with full resolve (determination). Strong's 1012 boulḗ – properly, a resolved plan, used particularly of the immutable aspect of God's plan – purposefully arranging all physical circumstances, which guarantees every scene of life works to His eternal purpose.10 The interpretation of boúlomai should be obvious to any competent bible teacher. (2 Timothy 2:15).. boúlomai refers to God's decretive will, i.e., it is not a command that can be disobeyed.."1 

The obvious qualification for bible teachers and debaters is that they have sound doctrine and are able to teach. (Titus 1:9; 1 Timothy 3:2,4:2-3). However, Calvinism (Reformed theology) is demonstrably a different gospel. (2 Corinthians 11:4). Limited atonement is a message of utter hopelessness to the majority of humanity. Calvinism twists the scriptures so that all/everone/any/the world/every creature does not actually mean what it says. Those who teach this wicked doctrine often have an appearance of superior wisdom, while in reality, they deny the universal application of the gospel itself. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1). Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is an inclusive invitation directed towards all sinners in the world who are willing to repent and put their faith in Him. (1 Timothy 1:15).

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent (μετανοειτε) for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”(Matthew 4:17 cf. Mark 1:15; Luke 5:32). Jesus used the imperative; in other words, He commanded all to repent.

Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.. (Acts 3:19).

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4).

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9).

Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? (Ezekiel 18:23).

For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live." (Ezekiel 18:32 cf. Job 36:9-12; Proverbs 1:23-33; Isaiah 1:19-20; Jeremiah 7:23-24; Deuteronomy 30:15-20; Ezekiel 18:30-32).

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).

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.. (Titus 2:11).

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (Matthew 23:37).

The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. (Revelation 22:17).

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2).

Wessels' horrible theology

Wessels seems to relish his perverted doctrine of limited atonement: "God hates the wicked.. he abhors them..  but he has a love for some that he has put his mercy on..." (41:00 mark). The horror of Wessels' theology is that he teaches that God puts His mercy on very few people (the elect) arbitrarily, but that the vast majority of humanity cannot be saved because they are not granted repentance. In Calvinism, repentance is considered a "work". However, Romans 4:5 debunks this false assumption: And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness..

Wessels: "God sends evil spirits to men.."  

h

In Calvinism, a reprobate is a sinner who is not of the elect and is predestined to damnation. Wessels fails to take the two examples of Saul and Ahab in context. These two kings became apostate by degree, their final condition being reprobation. 

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is an eschatological passage concerning the day of the Lord. Note that Paul speaks of "the rebellion" and the appearance of "the man of lawlessness" (the Antichrist). The reason for their rejection could not be clearer; they "refused to love the truth and be saved.. they did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."  

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

False teachers like Zins and Wessels are unteachable. Their agenda is to press on regardless with their own perverted version of the scriptures in willful ignorance. (Proverbs 12:1,16:18). Those who claim to have superior knowledge while teaching gross error are, like the Pharisees, at severe risk of being abandoned to judicial hardening. (John 9:41).

1. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: MY RESPONSE TO HARDCORE CALVINISTS ROB ZINS & LARRY WESSELS

MY RESPONSE TO HARDCORE CALVINISTS ROB ZINS & LARRY WESSELS

Rob Zins & Larry Wessels of Christian Answers Are Accused of Being False Prophets For 2 Peter 3:8-9

In the above video, Rob Zins and Larry Wessels spend the best part of an hour and a half insulting me in their failed attempt to destroy my critique of their teaching on 2 Peter 3:9: "God Is Not Willing That Any Should Perish," Who Is God Talking About In 2 Peter 3:9? All Or Some?

My Response: WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: ROB ZINS' CALVINIST TAKE ON 2 PETER 3:9: "GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH". 

Zins/Wessels' bizarre assumptions and scripture twisting

* Zins and Wessels attempt to justify themselves by pointing out that they have been producing videos together for thirty-four years. During this time, they claim they have taught "pretty much what the Bible says." This is a logical fallacy. Millions of views and 120 videos are meaningless if they do not teach the truth. Roman Catholics, Mormons, JW's, and many other false denominations have disseminated videos and written material over hundreds of years.. Does that make them right? 

* My brief description of Arminianism and Calvinism (Reformed Theology) was for the benefit of readers who are not familiar with the subject. I don't assume I have anything to teach Zins and Wessels about theological issues per se. My problem is with their distorted interpretation of the scriptures through a Calvinist lens.

* Wessels: "If Calvinism is not true, Jesus' mission failed because so few people are saved." (paraphrased) Jesus' mission did not fail! He knew very well that few would be saved. (Matthew 7:13-14).

Bible Hub:".. and only a few find it.. This phrase underscores the reality that not everyone will choose the path of righteousness. The use of 'few' indicates that true discipleship is rare and requires a conscious decision to follow Christ. This reflects the biblical theme of the remnant, a faithful minority who remain true to God amidst widespread unbelief (Romans 11:5). It also serves as a warning and a call to evangelism, urging believers to guide others toward the narrow way."1 

* Zins' claim that "Pelagian Armenian Evangelical and Roman Catholics" believe in Open Theism is incorrect. Zins: ".. does God know all things because He looks down and adds them to his knowledge base? It is a universal and consistent theme of Pelagian Armenian Evangelical and Roman Catholic theology that God arrives at knowledge." 

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Predestination (Latin præ, destinare), taken in its widest meaning, is every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those which directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man's free will. It includes all historical facts, as for instance the appearance of Napoleon or the foundation of the United States, and particularly the turning-points in the history of supernatural salvation, as the mission of Moses and the Prophets, or the election of Mary to the Divine Motherhood. Taken in this general sense, predestination clearly coincides with Divine Providence and with the government of the world, which do not fall within the scope of this article (see DIVINE PROVIDENCE)."2 

Catholic Answers: "God’s knowledge of our future follows necessarily from his perfection. If God didn’t know our future, then he would lack knowledge. But God can’t lack knowledge because he is absolutely perfect, the fullness of being itself (ipsum esse subsisten–subsistent being itself). Therefore, God must know the future.."3 

Again, I do not doubt Zins's knowledge and competence in refuting Roman Catholicism. However, his statement concerning RC foreknowledge contradicts their official doctrine i.e., "God has appointed and ordained all events occurring in time.." Open Theism was rejected by the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) around twenty years ago and they still officially hold that position.4 Open Theism was adopted by false "Apostle" C Peter Wagner and his view been accepted by many New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) leaders.5 The current status of Open Theism is that it is a minority position widely rejected by mainstream evangelicals. I bring this up, not because I think I have anything to teach Zins, but because he has demonstrably misrepresented both the RCC and mainstream Evangelicals. Again, I am not an apologist for the RCC, but to misrepresent an adversary in any debate is disingenuous. Rather than embarking on a rant against me for calling him out, Zins should have corrected this false statement. (Proverbs 12:17).

* While I have quoted Spurgeon occasionally, I do not endorse Calvinism, no matter who teaches it. I was never truly comfortable about quoting Calvinist or Lutheran sources, and I occasionally included a proviso. In fact, one of my readers challenged me about this some time ago. As a result, I no longer reference those who teach a mixture of truth and error. (1 John 4:6). 

* The false accusation that I have made ad hominem attacks against Zins and Wessels is unfounded. I submitted a critique of Zins' teaching and my horror of Calvinism. However, I did not launch a personal attack against either of these men. Unfortunately, they did not show me the same courtesy!

* I stand corrected. Zins said "regeneration precedes faith", whereas I quoted him as saying "regeneration precedes salvation". I have corrected this error in my original post. Nevertheless, the argument stands. For all the scriptures Zins quotes allegedly supporting the proposition that regeneration precedes faith, several scriptures suggest that faith precedes regeneration. (e.g. John 1:12, 3:15-16; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 21,11:18,16:31; Romans 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 1:21). 

* In 2000, I wrote a paper on Free Will and Determinism, in which I compared the conflicting views of Luther and Erasmus. I purchased Luther's The Bondage of the Will and Erasmus' Discourse in Free Will, and my research took some months to complete. I came to the conclusion: 'In His sovereignty, God created human beings with free will.' This may seem like a contradiction in terms, but I found that when I considered one view, there was an equally good argument from the other side. After wrestling with the problem for some time, I felt that the two rigid options, free will or determinism, fail to adequately answer the question, and that it is not an either/or choice. (Psalm 139:6). Tozer: "God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil." Calvin presents us with a cautionary example of a prideful man operating in the flesh who presumed that it was within his remit to impose his own (heavily influenced by Augustine) understanding onto the scriptures. The aftermath has resulted in grievous divisions within the Body of Christ that should never have arisen. The fact that Calvin was a despot who persecuted and even murdered his detractors reveals what spirit he was of.6  

* For Zins to state that I know nothing about Calvinism is defamatory. While I do not claim to be an expert, I have studied Calvinism in some depth, as demonstrated by my previous posts on the subject. I do not claim to have the same in-house knowledge as hardcore Calvinists Zins and Wessels, who have been entrenched in the heresy for many years. 

* Zins denies human autonomy and shifts the focus onto human responsibility. Once again, he regresses into a logical fallacy. How can human beings be held responsible if they do not have free will? In contrast, those who oppose Calvinism argue that people have a responsibility to believe and repent. Although humanity is in bondage to sin, people have the capacity to willingly admit that they are in bondage to sin and in need of God's help. This is facilitated by God's revelation through the law (a tutor) and the appeal of the gospel (grace).    

* But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing (βουλόμενος) that any should perish (ἀπολέσθαι), but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. (2 Peter 3:8-10).

He is patient toward you (ὑμᾶς, plural). (2 Peter 3:9). Zins' interpretation of this verse is that Peter directed this phrase to "the reading community" whom he addressed as "Beloved" earlier in the chapter. (2 Peter 3:1). The question arises: Was Peter addressing this specific group of believers (in this case, predominantly Jewish believers), or was he including everyone in the world in these statements? The obvious problem with Zins' interpretation is that it makes no logical sense for God to say to "the elect" that he is not willing for any of them to perish. In other words, why would God say that He is not willing for any believers to perish if, according to Calvinism, "the elect" cannot perish? If Peter was referring to "repentance within salvation", it is highly unlikely that he would have used the term ἀπόλλυμι which implies "permanent (absolute) destruction, i.e. to cancel out (remove); 'to die, with the implication of ruin and destruction' (L & N, 1, 23.106); cause to be lost (utterly perish) by experiencing a miserable end. consequences."7 Zins seems to be suggesting that "the reading community" to whom Peter was writing could perish i.e. lose their salvation. Zins' deficient interpretation is fairly typical of the reductio ad absurdum that Calvinists resort to in order to manipulate the scriptures. The orthodox non-Calvinist interpretation is that God is patient and delays judgement because he desires all men everywhere to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4; Acts 17:30; John 3:16; 1 John 2:2). Earlier in the chapter, scoffers refer to "the promise of His coming" when they ask, "Where is the promise of His coming?" (2 Peter 3:4). "His promise" in 2 Peter 3:9 refers back to, and addresses the accusation on the lips of the scoffers. In other words, these verses are not directed exclusively to the "reading community". The context and grammar of this passage indicate that God is patient with everyone.. not willing that any should perish. (2 Peter 3:9).  

Meyer: "εἰς ὑμᾶς] not: 'towards mankind called of free grace' (Dietlein), nor towards the heathen (Schott), but in ὑμᾶς the readers are addressed to whom the epistle is written, the more general reference to the others being understood as a matter of course.."8  

Note: Not willing that any should perish; rather, not wishing or desiring (μὴ βουλόμενος). Zins throws an unnecessary spanner into the works by suggesting that boúlomai could mean either "God's eternal decree" or "the will of God's command". In the New Testament, "entolé" refers to a commandment or directive, often of divine origin. Zins cites 1 Thessalonians 4:3 as an example of God's "will of command" aka God's "perceptive will". For this is the will (θέλημα) of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; Note that Paul used the noun θέλημα in this verse, not the verb boúlomai. "θέλημα  = will, desire, purpose."9 The lexical interpretation of boúlomai is "..to plan with full resolve (determination). Strong's 1012 boulḗ – properly, a resolved plan, used particularly of the immutable aspect of God's plan – purposefully arranging all physical circumstances, which guarantees every scene of life works to His eternal purpose.10 The interpretation of boúlomai should be obvious to any competent bible teacher. (2 Timothy 2:15).. boúlomai refers to God's decretive will, i.e., it is not a command that can be disobeyed. Ironically, Zins says that I should be embarrassed by my non-Calvinist interpretation of this passage! Well, I guess these guys had their moment of hollow victory while they laughed, scorned, and ridiculed me as an ignoramus and a heretic! Perhaps the boot should be on the other foot! 

Zins' asinine interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8-9 and his barrage of insults against me are unconscionable. Zins: "She is not a very good Bible expositor, and she is probably running on high emotion most of the time. She understands a little bit of Arminianism, a little bit of Pelagianism, and a whole lot of nothing about Calvinism." If it is "emotional" to trust the Lord and to believe that Jesus Christ came to die for the sins of the whole world, then I stand guilty as charged! (John 3:16).

Extreme doctrine that goes beyond what is written inevitably results in those who indulge in such foolishness rejecting those outside their own elitist group as being non-Christian and devoid of the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 4:6). This is precisely where Zins and Wessels are at. They even go so far as to reject believers outside the Calvinist echo chamber as unbelievers. (Acts 11:9).  

Disclaimer: I do not promote or agree with Open Theism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, Provisionism, Universalism, Synergism, Monergism, or any other philosophical label falsely applied by many Calvinists with the intention of misrepresenting their detractors. 

Recommended Links

 - Joel Korytko. Korytko has made a significant impact on the debate. In particular, I recommend his verse-by-verse analysis of the Old Testament in Romans 9. How Romans 9 Doesn't Support Calvinism

- Jordan Hatfield (Great Light Studios). (383) Answering Calvinism (Non-Calvinist Teaching Resources) - YouTube

- Kevin Thompson (Beyond The Fundamentals). Thompson's videos on stealth Calvinism are very revealing. Paul's Conversion Disproves Calvinism

- Alana Lagares. 19-year former Calvinist.. (383) Leaving Calvinism After 19 Years | With Alana L - YouTube 

- Dave Hunt. I regarded Dave Hunt as a good bible teacher. However, it should be noted that I do not endorse the pretribulation rapture. (415) Dave Hunt - What Love is This? (Calvinism's misrepresentation of God) - YouTube

1. Matthew 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.  

2. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Predestination

3. Why God's Foreknowledge Doesn't Negate Free Will | Catholic Answers Q&A

4. Evangelical Theological Society rejects 'open theism,' affirms God's foreknowledge | Baptist Press 

5. Open Theism & NAR Theology — Richard P. Moore 

6. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: CALVINISM: THE HORRIBLE DECREE

7. Strong's Greek: 622. ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) -- To destroy, to perish, to lose 

8. 2 Peter 3:9 Commentaries: The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

9. Strong's Greek: 2307. θέλημα (theléma) -- Will, desire, purpose.  

10. Strong's Greek: 1014. βούλομαι (boulomai) -- to will, to wish, to desire, to intend. 

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)