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)

WARREN MCGREW (IDOL KILLER): PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (2)

Penal Substitution's First 3 Claims - Augustinian Anthropology (youtube.com)

This is the second of 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 three PSA claims devised by Augustine of Hippo: Original Sin, Total Depravity, and Infant Depravity.

1. Original sin: Augustine taught a virulent version of original sin. He claimed that every individual is personally guilty of Adam's sin in the garden due to his position as the federal head of the human race. A modern version of original sin is the false doctrine of Identificational Repentance in which people identify with, and are held responsible for, the historic sins of a group they identify with e.g. family, church or nation. 

Bible verses that refute Augustine's version of original sin:

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:20).

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

Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16).

The main bible verse that allegedly supports Augustine's version of original sin is Romans 5:12:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the 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. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-21).

This passage introduces a parallel between Jesus and Adam. Adam represents all people in the garden, and Jesus represents all people on the cross. There is no evidence in this passage to suggest that all people are personally guilty of Adam's sin. Paul specifically mentions "those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam" and "many trespasses". He asserts that many were made sinners as a result of Adam's sin i.e. everyone incurred the sentence of death in Adam. Augustine did not know the original languages, and tragically, his interpretation of Romans 5:12 in his book "On Merit" is based on the Latin Vulgate which mistranslates the Greek text ἐφ ᾧ (because). The resulting error that permeated the church is Jerome's rendering "in whom all sinned" which falsely suggests that all people sinned in Adam.1 

I am unable to accept Vendredi's view that Paul "became confused" when he wrote Romans 5:12-21. (2 Timothy 3:16). Paul's epistles contain some things that are "hard to understand" and prone to distortion. (2 Peter 3:16). When faced with these difficulties, it is all the more critical that we really do understand Paul's meaning. (2 Timothy 2:15).

2. Total Depravity. The unbiblical idea of total depravity is rooted in the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that people are born totally corrupt and cannot receive God's grace by responding to the gospel message in repentance and faith. 

Psalm 51:5 is allegedly a proof text for the false doctrine of total depravity: 

Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5).

There is no concept of original sin in the Old Testament. David wrote this psalm following his sin with Bathsheba when Nathan the prophet confronted him and he was overcome with guilt. (2 Samuel 12-13). Augustine's idea that we are conceived in lust and born in sin is unscriptural. Those who cite this verse as a proof text that David was personally guilty of Adam's sin exceed what is written. (1 Corinthians 4:6).  If anything, this verse points to the sin of David's mother, not to David himself. There is a possible extra-biblical explanation of this verse. The Talmud refers to some issues within Jesse's family resulting in an accusation of illegitimacy concerning David. This story cannot be verified, but it explains the reason for David's apparent problematic relationship with his family. Jesse overlooked and disregarded David as a possible candidate for "the Lord's anointed", and he was denigrated by his eldest brother Eliab when he spoke against Goliath. (1 Samuel 16:11 cf. 1 Samuel 17:28-29).2  

Romans 2 refutes the idea of total depravity since "the law of God", sometimes referred to as "natural law" is imprinted on our hearts. 

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:1,12-16). 

The only instance where people are described as totally depraved en masse is Genesis 8:21. This unique situation appears to be due to circumstances related to the Nephilim. (Genesis 8:21 cf. Genesis 6:2). There is the possibility of having one's conscience seared by devoting oneself to the demonic. (1 Timothy 4:1-2). Furthermore, God can give individuals over to a reprobate mind as an act of judgement. (Romans 1:28 cf 2 Timothy 3:8). The above scriptures confirm that under certain circumstances, God can cause individuals to become totally depraved/reprobate. Jesus Christ warned of spiritual deception and "the multiplication of wickedness" at the end of the age. (Matthew 24:2,37).

3. Infant Depravity

Vendredi sums up the false doctrine of infant depravity as follows: "Even infants, innocent of actual sin, are guilty of original sin and are therefore born totally depraved."  

Warren McGrew: "This time we hear from some of the leading Calvinist voices and their view of children. John MacArthur holds a gnostic view of sin wherein sin is a substance to be transferred and exchanged; thus he believes the greatest act of depravity is when a husband and wife become pregnant. RC Sproul takes issue with John Calvin's claim that children are as depraved as rats. In Sproul's opinion, this is far too insulting to the rat. Voddie Baucham calls an infants a "viper in a diaper". While Paul Washer claims infants are born evil, possessed of murderous intent and hating God."3  

Scriptures that refute infant depravity

Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. (Psalm 22:9-10). 

For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O LORD, from my youth. Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother’s womb. My praise is continually of you. (Psalm 71:5-6).

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127:3-5).

For You created my innermost parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, because I am awesomely and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. (Psalm 139:13&14). 

But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me. (2 Samuel 12:23).

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.

Augustine seems to have adopted the practice of infant baptism based on Origen's defective view. Infant baptism appears to have come into favor among church leaders around AD235, although there may have been earlier instances of the practice.5 

Origen: “Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248])."

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]

When Adam sinned, the human race lost an inheritance and forfeited access to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24). As a result all humanity became subject to death (mortality) and suffered a relational separation from God. Immortality has been restored to us through the gospel of Jesus Christ, but many reject the light due to their love of darkness: And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. (John 3:19 cf. John 1:5; Genesis 4:7). 

Ellicott: "All have sinned and come short.—Strictly, all sinned; the Apostle looking back upon an act done in past time under the old legal dispensation, without immediate reference to the present: he then goes on to say that the result of that act (as distinct from the act itself) continues on into the present. The result is that mankind, in a body, as he now sees them, and before they come within the range of the new Christian system, fall short of, miss, or fail to obtain, the glory of God."6

I have no argument with McGrew and Vendredi's critique of Augustine's teachings. However, the concept of PSA, distinct from Augustine's distorted version, is present both in the scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers. Augustine formulated a false concept of PSA based on his own presuppositions, scriptural ignorance, and errors introduced by Jerome and Origen.

To be continued..

1. Latin Vulgate New Testament Bible - Epistle of Paul to the Romans 5
2. Nitzevet, Mother of David - The bold voice of silence - Chabad.org
3. Evil & Depraved - The Reformed View of Children (youtube.com)
4. Even the Children of the Regenerate Born in Sin. The Effect of Baptism. (biblehub.com)
5. Infant Baptism — Church Fathers
6. Romans 3 Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (biblehub.com)

WARREN MCGREW (IDOL KILLER): PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (1)

What is Penal Substitution? Reviewing PSA's 17 Claims (youtube.com)

In the above seven-part series, Warren McGrew (Idol Killer) reviews and attempts to debunk the seventeen claims of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). McGrew is joined by former podcaster and radio producer Paul Vendredi who identifies as Eastern Orthodox. Vendredi is very well-informed and posted seventy-seven episodes on the atonement between 2011 and 2016 on his website.1 My goal is to work through all seven episodes and hopefully present a credible challenge to some of the views outlined in this series.

Idol Killer's self-description: "Idol Killer is committed to spreading the Gospel and making disciples of Christ. We are dedicated to promoting classic orthodox Christian doctrine (pre-Augustinian) and in doing so exposing extra-Biblical corrupt philosophies and presuppositions."

McGrew is a former Calvinist, and while I congratulate him for leaving that twisted system, I have a number of issues with the above critique of PSA. Aspects of PSA were developed, or should I say distorted, by Augustine of Hippo (AD354-430), Anselm of Canterbury (AD1033-1109), and finally by the 16th-century Reformers (Charles Hodge AD1797-1878?). In all, PSA boasts seventeen claims. However, some of those claims do not align with the source material i.e. the scriptures and the Church Fathers. Having viewed a number of McGrew's videos, I agree with much of what he says about total depravity, limited atonement, original sin, and infant damnation. Some have taken PSA to ugly extremes, and the repulsive rhetoric relished by some Calvinist (Reformed) teachers is unspeakably wicked and I make no apology for calling them out. For instance, Voddie Baucham: "Babies are vipers in diapers"; James White's affirmation of infant damnation, RC Sproul: "We will be glad to see our own mother in hell"; Paul Washer: "Babies are totally depraved"; Calvin: "Babies are as depraved as rats".2  

McGrew recounted that following his abandonment of Calvinism, he questioned many things, including the doctrine of PSA and the reason that Christ came and lived, died, and suffered. (22:00 mark) Worryingly, McGrew also subscribes to Open Theism aka Dynamic Omniscience. When I finally abandoned Pentecostalism, I began to reject all things charismatic and I questioned every aspect of their teaching. While I acknowledge that there are genuine believers within the charismatic movement, it is undeniable that a very high percentage of their teachers are dishonest and engage in fakery and lies as recently demonstrated by the exposures of Mike Bickle and Benny Hinn. I wonder whether McGrew has had a similar reaction following his departure from the Reformed camp?  If so, has his aversion to Calvinism gone too far and caused him to reject some core doctrines of the faith? 

 

PSA is ingrained within the Western Church and is regarded as a given. According to Mike Winger, to question PSA is to question the very foundation of Christianity itself: "(Penal substitutionary atonement) is the very meaning of the cross. It's how Jesus saves us.. It's a huge deal, it's the heart of Christianity."3 

Winger's definition of PSA: "The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin."3 

Vendredi begins by defining two terms:     

atonement is reparation for a wrong or an injury.

propitiation is to take someone who is not well disposed toward you and make them well disposed towards you by means of atonement. 

While the above definitions are compatible with lexical definitions, the problem arises because Eastern Christianity does not view the death of Christ as an atonement, although confusingly it is referred to as such. Various non-western schools of thought refer to Christ's death in terms of restoration, cooperation (synergism), and "the restored icon model" which Vendredi goes on to explain. Essentially different groups use the same vocabulary but have a totally different understanding of the terms. The key to solving this dilemma is to understand what the scriptures mean by atonement and propitiation, and also how the Church Fathers understood the terms. The two occurrences of propitiation (ἱλασμός) in the New Testament are defined in Strong's Concordance as "a propitiation (of an angry god), atoning sacrifice. (1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10).. 2434 hilasmós – properly, propitiation; an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party. 2434 (hilasmós) is only used twice (1 Jn 2:2, 4:10) – both times of Christ's atoning blood that appeases God's wrath, on all confessed sin. By the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus Christ provided the ultimate 2434 /hilasmós ('propitiation')."4  Two occurrences of propitiary (ἱλαστήριον) are found in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5: "(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."5  

Among those who oppose PSA are Brian Zahnd and Steve Chalke, both of whom I regard as false teachers and do not intend to critique here. McGrew and Vendredi's challenge is based on the study of PSA based on their interpretation of the scriptures and the Church Fathers.    

The view espoused by Vendredi (and presumably Mcgrew?) is Christus Victor (Latin for“Christ the Conqueror”). Briefly defined: God conquers evil and liberates humanity from the bondage of sin, death and the devil. Theopedia: "Christus Victor is a motif of divine rescue and liberation from the bondage of sin, death and the devil."6  

The term "Christus Victor" is taken from a groundbreaking book published by Lutheran theologian Gustaf Aulén in 1931. Rather than understanding the scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers as a unified whole, Aulén deconstructed various aspects of the atonement of Christ into three primary interpretations in Christian history: Christus Victor, Satisfaction and Moral Influence. Aulén claimed that the Christus Victor model is the "classic idea of the atonement" articulated by the Church Fathers and the scriptures. The resulting disputations regarding the theology of the atonement rest primarily on Aulén's hypothesis. Aulén's critics describe his book as highly selective and unrepresentative of the source materials. Aulén's failure to appreciate the complimentary aspects of the crucifixion has resulted in the accusation that he created a false dichotomy with his either/or approach to the atonement.

Rekindle: "..his (Aulén's) handling of the Bible leaves much to be desired. It is selective to a fault, often overlooking key details that would broaden the atonement to include penal substitution (PSA). On the other hand, some of those passages that Aulén regularly cites make no mention of the devil (Romans 3; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5). For example, Aulén appeals at length to 2 Corinthians 5, but he omits any reference to 5:21, “For our sake [God] made [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”.7 

The Church Fathers

Epistle to Diognetus (? AD130): 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! (Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2–5).8 

Justin Martyr (AD150-165): "For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses. Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' Deuteronomy 27:26 And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God." {Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 95}9  

Athanasius (AD300-375): "Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.." (chapter 2)

He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all.. (chapter 2)
But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression.. He died to ransom all... (chapter 4)10 

Gregory of Nazainzus (AD329-390): "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved." {Letters division 1)11 Vendredi links this sentence to what he refers to as "The Restored Icon Model" based Genesis 1:26 and The Wisdom of Solomon 2:23-24 in the Septuagint. This view affirms that man is an icon of God that has become damaged. To repair this damage, God Himself assumes human flesh, uniting the entirety of human nature to his divinity. The Greek word in question is εἰκών (eikón): an image, i.e. lit. statue, fig. representation.12 While I have no argument with this model as far as it goes, Gregory of Nazianzus had more to say about the atonement:  

"..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. {Fourth Theological Oration (Oration 30)}13 

John Chrysostom (AD347-407): And what does He entreat? Be reconciled unto God. And he said not, 'Reconcile God to yourselves;' for it is not He that bears enmity, but you; for God never bears enmity. Urging moreover his cause, like an ambassador on his mission, he says, For Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on our account.
'I say nothing of what has gone before, that you have outraged Him, Him that had done you no wrong, Him that had done you good, that He exacted not justice, that He is first to beseech, though first outraged; let none of these things be set down at present. Ought ye not in justice to be reconciled for this one thing only that He has done to you now?' And what has He done? Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you. For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? Him that knew no sin, he says, Him that was righteousness itself, He made sin, that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. For cursed is he that hangs on a tree. Galatians 3:13 For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, says, Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross. Philippians 2:8 For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace. Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on you. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dies for sinners; and not dies only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dies] only, but thereby freely bestows upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him;) {Homily 11 on Second Corinthians}14 

In a separate video on Idol Killer, Vendredi latches onto John Chrysostom's claim that God never bears enmity as a sure-fire refutation of PSA.15  However, John Chrysostom continues to describe how the Corinthians first outraged God. I stand to be corrected, but I understand John Chrysostom to be saying that Paul is speaking into their repentant attitude following the problematic situation in 1 Corinthians 5:1-12 cf. 2 Corinthians 2:5-11. Alternatively, he may have been referring to their previous unbelieving state? One synonym for outrage is wrath. God's enmity towards them has subsided. In other words, God never continues to bear enmity (wrath) following repentance. 

Vendredi refers to John Chrysostom as a "blabbermouth" due to his voluminous writings. He continues: "I actually don't think that John Chrysostom's exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:21 is all that bright." John Chrysostom's writings are wordy, voluminous and difficult to follow. Nevertheless, he does use unmistakable PSA language in this section of his writings. 

I could quote more of the Church Fathers, but the above selection demonstrates that their writings contain elements of Christ's substitutionary death using penal language. While they had no systemized formula for the atonement, their focus was multifaceted. Anyone can quote fragments of the Church Fathers selectively to suit their own interpretation, but it is vital to take account of the overall picture of their writings, and as far as I can discern, elements of PSA is very much part of that picture.  

To be continued.....

1. Paul Vendredi : The God that Answereth by Fire, Let Him Be God
2. Evil & Depraved - The Reformed View of Children (youtube.com)
3.The Real History of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (youtube.com)
4. Strong's Greek: 2434. ἱλασμός (hilasmos) -- propitiation (biblehub.com)
5. Strong's Greek: 2435. ἱλαστήριον (hilastérion) -- propitiatory (biblehub.com)
6. Gustaf Aulen | Theopedia
7. A Broad Critique of Christus Victor | Rekindle
8. CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to Diognetus (Mathetes) (newadvent.org)
9. CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 89-108 (Justin Martyr) (newadvent.org)
10. Chapter 2: The Divine Dilemma and Its Solution in the Incarnation by Athanasius (blueletterbible.org)
11. CHURCH FATHERS: Letters, Division I (Gregory Nazianzen) (newadvent.org)
12. Strong's Greek: 1504. εἰκών (eikón) -- an image, i.e. lit. statue, fig. representation (biblehub.com)
13. CHURCH FATHERS: Fourth Theological Oration (Oration 30) (Gregory Nazianzen) (newadvent.org)
14. CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 11 on Second Corinthians (Chrysostom) (newadvent.org)
15. John Chrysostom & PSA - Answering Mike Winger E4 (youtube.com)