Paul Vendredi

One of the most disturbing features of Mike Winger’s series on penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA) is his Orwellian tactic of redefining terms as their antonyms. The most egregious instance of this is his misuse of the word forgiveness. In Winger’s definition, forgiveness actually means exacting the full penalty for an infraction, which is odd and contrary to the common understanding of forgiveness. Paul Vendredi then references the writings of John MacArthur and John Piper, two other theologians in the atonement school, to support the argument that forgiveness should have its lexical meaning: namely, letting go of a debt or offense, not exacting a penalty. Host Warren McGrew uses an analogy of child rearing to illustrate the point, suggesting that if children were taught to follow Winger's definition of forgiveness, they would resort to violence and retaliation instead of forgiveness. Paul uses the illustration of Donald Trump’s presidential pardon of Rod Blogojevich, in which Trump simply erased the remaining years on Blogojevich’s sentence; Trump did not make Blogojevich’s cell mate serve the remainder of the sentence. Forgiveness is not the only term that Winger mangles. He incorrectly defines rhetoric as specious use of language, while in reality, it is the art of persuasion. Paul also points out that the Book of Romans, which Winger highly regards, is written in a Greco-Roman rhetorical genre called the scholastic diatribe. Since Winger criticizes rhetoric, he should reject the Book of Romans if he follows his own logic. Winger continually equates PSA with the Gospel itself, a fallacy known as "tautological question"; that is, when a person presupposes his interpretation of an event, thereby precluding others from interpreting it differently. Winger frequently asserts that any criticism of PSA is an attack on the gospel or the meaning of the cross, creating a standard that any criticism of his position is a criticism of Christianity itself. Paul laments that this tactic was employed even by his one-time hero, Walter Martin. Paul quotes Martin's book "The New Age Cult," which equates New Testament Christianity with belief in PSA. The hosts note the increasing stridency and desperation of those who consider themselves gatekeepers of orthodox Protestantism, as these once revered arbiters of truth find themselves out of step with a growing number of conservative Protestants who now reject PSA. Warren explains how he felt compelled to research the early church's interpretation of the atonement after realizing that his belief in PSA was based on an Augustinian anthropology and reformed paradigm. He acknowledges the difficulty of challenging long-held beliefs and the confusion or despair felt by those who have been taught that PSA is the only valid model of understanding the work of Christ. He warns that Winger's defense of PSA, while perhaps well-intentioned, is dangerous, as it may drive people away from the faith due to its portrayal of God as requiring the sacrifice of his own son for propitiation. Warren shares his personal journey of grappling with tough questions about Christianity and his fear of scrutinizing his beliefs due to a deep-rooted bias towards PSA. He admits that his motivation was largely driven by fear and lack of faith in God and the Bible. However, he eventually decided to trust God and explore alternate models of atonement.

Paul Vendredi joins Warren McGrew for a second pass at Mike Winger’s fallacious tactics, focusing this time on the tactic called “forestalling disagreement” (phrasing assertions in a way that makes disagreement therewith embarrassing). Winger and company are reduced to such tactics because their idea of the Gospel (identified with penal-substitutionary atonement [PSA]) so blatantly violates bedrock principles of biblical morality and natural-law theory. Winger, a past master of forestalling disagreement, employs two variants of the tactic: 1) forestalling disagreement through shame, and 2) forestalling disagreement through self-congratulation. Regarding the first variant, Winger places his adversaries along a continuum of dishonor: either one is a liberal; or a non-Christian; or perhaps one actually is a Christian, but is too dense to realize the truth of PSA. This variant is called “the wicked alternative.” Another variant is a spin on the ad-hominem fallacy. Mike says non-atonement schoolers are motivated by sin, or he slaps them with unattractive terms like “liberal” and “progressive.” Embarrassingly for the Reverend Mr. Winger, Paul produces several artifacts proving himself more conservative politically and theologically than Winger. Paul also exposes Winger’s denomination, Calvary Chapel, as an instigator of much of what conservatives now deplore in mainstream Protestantism. Regarding the second variant of forestalling disagreement, Winger congratulates himself as enviably studious, keenly insightful, or the like. Thus, one wishing to be as studious or insightful as Winger will sign on the bottom line of PSA. Both Warren and Paul point to failings in Winger’s research that prove him to be far less knowledgeable than he portrays himself to be.

The fallacy of hypostatized proof happens when an historian mistakes an historical event for the received interpretation of the event. In theology, this fallacy occurs when a reader mistakes a Bible passage for his tradition’s official spin of the passage. YouTuber Mike Winger often falls into to this fallacy during the course of his 6-video defense of penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA). Most notably, Winger’s Protestant tradition sees Christ as the culmination of the Old-Testament animal sacrifices. Thus, any time Winger speaks of the cross, the argumentation is loaded down with all of this conceptual freight. This means that any time Christ refers to himself as the fulfilment of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, Winger instantly understands that to mean animal sacrifice. Christ calls himself the fulfilment of Moses’ writings; that is to say, the first five books of the Old Testament. While it is true that these books contain the laws concerning animal sacrifices, they also contain numerous statements that are at odds with the entailments of PSA (time hack 8:46); likewise, the Psalms (time hack 15:58) and the Prophets (time hack 26:12). Paul makes especial note of the seventh chapter of Jeremiah, verses 21-23 of which read: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.” This passage throws into question the idea that the bewildering array of sacrifices offered after the Exodus from Egypt were God’s original intent for the Hebrews. Winger and the atonement school fail to recognize that a data set--in this case, the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ--can be explained by multiple working hypotheses (phrased more concisely, “models”). A reader must also at least save the appearances of a lexical data set. This set includes stand-alone words (sacrifice, suffered, died) and phrases (for our sins, died for our sins, had to suffer, had to die). Regrettably for the atonement school, all the models explaining Christ’s work--not just PSA--save the appearances of the lexical data set. Paul uses a clip from James White’s Dividing Line show to demonstrate that Protestants have no concept of what a model is. By extension, they also have no concept of philosophy or systematic theology.

Mike Winger vehemently denies that penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA) resembles the human sacrifices of pagan religions. Sadly for him, his elders in the atonement school freely admit the parallels. John MacArthur defines “propitiation” as a sacrifice to appease an offended deity, precisely the same definition found in ancient paganism. Today’s video also features audio clips of apologist Josh McDowell, systematic theologian Wayne Grudem, and seminary professor Warren A Gage admitting PSA’s pagan parallels. These admissions notwithstanding, atonement schoolers dismiss as liberal any critic pointing out the same parallels. John MacArthur's statement that liberal theologians despise the concept of propitiation is called out as a fallacy, as it assumes the truth of MacArthur's postulate and dismisses critics as lacking understanding or commitment to the Bible. MacArthur's use of the term "biblical doctrine of atonement" is both a tautological-question fallacy and a slap at critics. Furthermore, MacArthur misrepresents Anselm's approach to the atonement, as Anselm did not quote the Bible in his work on the atonement, but instead used deductions inferred from accepted premises. Analogies used to mock PSA also set atonement schoolers in high dudgeon. Winger indignantly condemns the virgin-and-the-volcano analogy and any comparison of PSA to child sacrifice. However, Paul Vendredi counters that the essential similarities between the volcano analogy and PSA outweigh the differences, as both involve an innocent person sacrificed to appease an angry deity. He also notes that Anselm, the creator of PSA, referred to Christ as the "child of God," making the comparison to child sacrifice valid. PSA proponents like Wayne Grudem hold contradictory positions regarding emulating God's behavior. While Grudem acknowledges that Christians are supposed to follow God's example, he also warns against interpreting PSA as justification for child abuse. Paul finds it odd that Grudem, after describing PSA, feels the need to caution against such behavior. Paul also compares the Aztec god Tlaloc, who preferred child sacrifices, to the god envisioned in PSA. Paul then discusses sacrifice in ancient civilizations, focusing on the Moabites, Romans, and Carthaginians. Paul notes that when pagans feel worshipful, they offer animal sacrifices, but when they are frightened, they escalate to human sacrifices. The Romans, who are often romanticized for their contributions to civilization, also engaged in human sacrifice during times of fear and desperation, as seen in the First and Second Punic Wars. Paul cautions Christians not to look down on ancient pagan civilizations while overlooking the similarities between their practices and those of more celebrated civilizations like the Romans. Paul also critiques Winger’s endorsement of legal fictions, which are a hallmark of Greco-Roman religion. In ancient Greek and Roman practice, animals had to be “willing” to be sacrificed, and this willingness was determined through a legal fiction called the "comedy of innocence." Host Warren McGrew expresses concern over the idolatrous attachment PSA’s exponents show to the doctrine's chief advocates, such as R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and Paul Washer. That idolatry is itself pagan in nature.

Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi join forces again to critique Mike Winger’s denial that penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA) developed as a doctrine. Paul decries Protestantism as historically threadbare, comparing it to the rich history of Christianity prior to 1517. He notes that significant events such as the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the writings of Church Fathers, and the Crusades had taken place long before Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. The speaker argues that Protestant historians must explain away this historical continuity to justify the emergence of Protestantism as a distinct form of Christianity. These historians use various techniques, including reinterpreting historical figures, identifying "lost" groups that upheld the truth, and projecting their own Protestant values onto the ancient Church. Paul critiques the anachronistic handling of scripture and the suggestion that Christians were in a state of apostasy and darkness until the 16th century when the truth was rediscovered, arguing that this perspective implies that God allowed the world to be in a state of demonic darkness for an extended period. One of Winger’s biggest whoppers is claiming that PSA does not cause a division within the Trinity. In response, Warren plays video clips of Michael Youssef and John MacArthur directly stating that there is a division in the Trinity during Christ’s crucifixion. Additionally, Warren plays clips of RC Sproul and Steven Lawson equating salvation to being saved from God's wrath. Sproul and Lawson argue that Christ saves us from God by offering himself as a sacrifice to God the Father, paying the penalty for our sin (a theory known as the Ransom-to-God theory). Mike Winger holds a similar view but struggles to reconcile it with the doctrine of the Trinity. Youssef, MacArthur, Sproul, and Lawson are not obscure personalities, nor are their soteriological peculiarities unknown. Nevertheless, Winger mendaciously maintains that a divided Trinity and the Ransom-to-God theory are misrepresentations of PSA!

“The atonement school” refers to modern, largely Protestant, adherents of Anselm’s theory of atonement. Grandees of the atonement school portray a God who is angry, violent, and bloodthirsty. Yet Mike Winger, a younger exponent of this school, maintains that critics who point this out are misrepresenting penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA). Indeed, Winger deems so many aspects of PSA theology misrepresentations that it may be time for him to formulate his own model of atonement, as he has strayed very far from the atonement-school reservation. Paul Vendredi and Warren McGrew label this phenomenon “Winger versus the atonement school.” While atonement schoolers like John MacArthur consistently assert that God brought infinite wrath and punishment on Jesus during the crucifixion, Winger struggles with these entailments due to his straddling of the Arminian and Calvinist worlds. Paul especially critiques the bloodthirsty nature of God in PSA theology, citing MacArthur’s use of phrases like "God took pleasure in killing his son in the most appalling manner possible" and Chuck Swindoll’s line "hundreds of thousands of gallons of blood every year poured through the altars." Paul suggests that Winger's cognitive dissonance stems from his inability to embrace fully the bloodthirsty God portrayed by atonement-school theology. Greg Boyd is a staunch critic of PSA. Winger objects to Boyd’s mocking use of the phrase “God vented his wrath on Jesus.” But Paul provides evidence from the teachings of Charles Haddon Spurgeon and John MacArthur, both respected figures in the atonement school, to prove that they certainly do teach that God vented his wrath on Christ. Paul then provides audio clips from the reputable atonement schoolers Derek Thomas and Paul Washer to demonstrate that they hold that God's wrath must be spent or satisfied for sin to be forgiven. Paul concludes that Greg Boyd is the truth teller in this debate, while Winger is the liar. Winger expresses his discomfort with the common saying among atonement schoolers that God pours out his wrath onto his son, Jesus. Winger admits that he struggles with the terminology and the implications of this phrase, despite affirming that Jesus experienced God's wrath on the cross. Paul and Warren likewise criticize the frequent use of the phrase, noting that it is used even in contexts unrelated to soteriology. They argue that it has become a catchphrase or buzzword that reveals doctrinal alignments. Paul commends Winger for shedding himself of theological shibboleths like "God poured out his wrath," but notes that he still clings to the phrase "the finished work of Christ." The speaker then challenges Winger's interpretation of this phrase, pointing out that there is controversy among atonement schoolers regarding the completion of Christ's work on the cross and the forgiveness of all sins past, present, and future. Paul references various Protestants, including Wayne Grudem, Josh McDowell, and Steven L. Anderson, who hold different views regarding Christ’s work.

Isaiah 53 is considered the “chair passage” for the doctrine of penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA). Known as the Suffering Servant Passage or the Fourth Servant Song, Isaiah 53 is the cornerstone of atonement-school theology. Should the atonement school’s interpretation of this passage prove incorrect, the entire system of PSA would crumble. Mike Winger characterizes his interpretation of Isaiah 53 as "beautiful" and claims it incorporates both the Old and New Testaments. However, Paul Vendredi argues that Winger's view is overconfident and fails to provide a thorough exegesis of the entire passage. Indeed, Winger only covers parts of Isaiah 53 and neglects the other three servant songs altogether. Additionally, Winger does not provide any exegesis for Isaiah 52:13-14 and Isaiah 53:7-9. Paul suggests that Winger's overconfidence hinders his ability to learn and understand the text in a new light. To Winger's claim of having looked “long and hard” for non-PSA analyses of Isaiah 53, Paul responds that they are readily available, including podcasts that Paul himself recorded in 2013 (see www.paulvendredi.com). Non-PSA analyses can even be found in the recordings of Winger’s fellow Protestants, as shown in a video clip by COGIC bishop, Gilbert E. Patterson. While Winger sees the passage as a depiction of vicarious atonement, Patterson interprets it as a representation of vicarious victory and healing. According to Patterson, the wounds and suffering of Christ are not for his own punishment but for the healing of various physical ailments, such as arthritis, migraines, and stomach problems. Similarly, Eastern Orthodoxy sees sin as a disease, preferring the phrase “remission of sins” over “forgiveness of sins” in their translations of the Divine Liturgy. Paul also points out that Isaiah himself was associated with healing in his prophetic career. The hosts spotlight a number of other faults in Winger’s analysis. While he understands the word “sprinkle” to refer to the Levitical sacrifices, it is likelier that this refers to Exodus 24, where the Covenant between God and Israel is ratified with the blood of oxen. Paul explains that this event signified an exclusive covenant between God and one nation, the Israelites, making them unable to return to their false gods and the bondage of Egypt. By contrast, the sprinkling in Isaiah 53 refers to Christ’s making a covenant with many nations. Regarding Winger's understanding of Isaiah 53:4, Paul argues that Winger overlooked the conjunction "yet" in the passage, which changes the meaning from "Clause A equals Clause B" to "Clause A does not equal Clause B." Paul explains that this literary device, called antithetic parallelism, is common in the prophets, Psalms, and Proverbs. Furthermore, John MacArthur (Winger’s elder in the atonement school) agrees with the Eastern Church's interpretation of "griefs" in Isaiah 53:4 as referring to the damaged human condition, which includes sorrow, pain, sickness, infirmity, and calamity.

Idol Killer host Warren McGrew and podcaster Paul Vendredi turn their attention to the Passover, which they identify as a sacrifice of iconoclasm, as opposed to Mike Winger’s view that it is a symbol of penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA). They compare Old-Testament passages like Exodus 12;12 and Numbers 33;3-4 to New-Testament passages like 1 John 3;8 and Hebrews 2;14, demonstrating that the Passover and Christ (who fulfils the Passover) served to destroy the works of the devil. Paul turns to a third-century work called the Didascalia Apostolorum, which states that God did not command sacrifices from Cain and Abel and that their offerings led to a murder. This passage suggests that sacrifices, especially animal sacrifices, can be harmful. Paul emphasizes that this view is consonant with the early Church Fathers' position that God is not subject to the law of necessity and is immutable and impassable. Therefore, human sin does not affect God and sacrifices do not benefit him. Warren adds to the case. Using the parable of The Prodigal Son, he explains that the father's slaying of the fatted calf was a celebratory act of reconciliation and redemption, not a brutal sacrifice required to appease him. Paul then distinguishes between the first and second legislations. The Church Fathers applied the term “second legislation” to all the sacrificial laws put in place after Exodus 32, which God established as a merciful accommodation designed to keep the Israelites from sliding into even worse idolatry. God allowed the Israelites to think they were appeasing him with blood sacrifices and that he was smelling the aroma of burning carcasses on the altar, when in reality no such thing was happening. Christ did not fulfill these sacrifices because they were not part of the original plan. Christ fulfills only the sacrifices prior to the Golden Calf. Paul clarifies the distinction between the Passover lamb and the goats of Yom Kippur, contending that Mike Winger has confused these concepts. John the Baptist and the Pauline Epistles directly identify Jesus as the Passover Lamb, while the Day of Atonement, which involves goats, is only mentioned indirectly in the New Testament. Paul also points out that Winger has mistakenly assumed that sheep and goats--completely different genera--are interchangeable animals. Warren notes the atonement school’s inconsistency in using the distinction between sheep and goats as a sign of the elect while failing to distinguish between them in its atonement theory. Winger also confuses the Last Supper (which took place BEFORE Passover) with Jesus' crucifixion (which took place DURING Passover). Paul points out that the Last Supper narratives in the Bible describe Jesus and his disciples eating leavened bread, which is not used in Passover meals. While avoiding a detour into apologetics, Paul notes that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the only Christian body that correctly observes leavened bread in the Eucharist, as it is a reenactment of the Last Supper, not a Passover meal.

Paul Vendredi rejoins Idol Killer to discuss the Day of Atonement. The show begins with the issue of the authorship of the Book of Hebrews and why it is problematic for Mike Winger to rely on it in his arguments. According to the hosts, the ancient Church determined that Hebrews was Pauline in authorship, but this is disputed by those in the atonement school, who argue that it does not meet the criterion of being written by an apostle or someone approved by an apostle. Paul questions why Winger relies so heavily on this book--which is non-canonical according to his own denomination’s criteria! Bizarrely, Winger also attacks the reliability of the Septuagint (LXX), the very translation on which the book of Hebrews depends. A medley of three video clips from Gary Rendsburg, an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls, reveals the discovery of Greek translations of the Old Testament in jars near Jericho and the existence of a Proto-Septuagintal strain, facts that undermine Winger's critiques of the LXX. As in previous videos, Winger pits himself against his peers in the atonement school. Despite the general position of the atonement school that the Old Testament sacrifices were useless salvifically, Mike Winger seems to argue that sacrifices offered on the Day of Atonement actually make atonement. However, he stays on the reservation by declaring the Day of Atonement a picture of Christ. Paul argues against its picturing Christ, seeing it rather as an accommodation to the Hebrews' pagan mindset. He explains that the sacrifice of the Passover lamb was insufficient in breaking the Hebrews from their pagan ways, and God allowed them to believe that their offerings were appeasing Him and giving Him food and drink, similar to the practices of the pagan nations around them. The Psalms, Proverbs, and Prophets gradually moved readers away from the primitive Pagan idea of viewing God as a deity who required sacrifices and animal offerings. Instead, God was seen as focusing on the restoration of the relationship between humans and Himself. Paul uses the analogy of teaching children math to explain how God gradually introduced new concepts to the ancient Israelites, even if it meant going against previous teachings for pedagogical reasons. Much discussion of the Ark of the Covenant ensues. Contrary to the common belief that priests could only enter the Holy of Holies once a year, priests were actually allowed to present themselves before the Ark of the Covenant at other times. Phinehas and Moses were able to enter the Holy of Holies on days other than Yom Kippur without being struck dead. Paul also contends that the Temple that stood from the time of Zerubbabel to Christ's time was illegitimate, as it had an empty Holy of Holies and an illegitimate altar due to historical events such as the defilement of the altar by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the lack of a legitimate prophet to guide the priests. As a result, during the observance of the Day of Atonement, the goat was sacrificed on an illegitimate altar and its blood sprinkled into an empty Holy of Holies. The belief among Jews that Jeremiah would return with the Ark of the Covenant, bringing the pot of manna it contained to feed the Israelites indicates that they knew the Holy of Holies was empty. Penal-substitutionary atonement is facing crisis and a new paradigm is needed, specifically the Restored-Icon Model held by Eastern Christians.

Paul Vendredi and Warren McGrew examine Mike Winger’s sixth video on penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA), which draws from concepts in English Common Law to defend PSA. Winger’s arguments result in an incoherent mess. For example, in his series on limited atonement, Winger argues against James White's view that the term "world" in 1 John 2;2 could refer to structures or organizations instead of people. Winger asserts that God punishes and rewards actual people. But in his PSA series, he asserts that God punishes abstractions. The hosts argue that Winger's notions lack systematic consistency, as he holds opposing views on limited atonement and PSA. It is also noted that within the atonement school, there are two different views regarding the nature of Christ's life and death. The soteriological view, which Wayne Grudem holds, asserts that Christ's life, death, and resurrection are all part of the salvific package. In contrast, the instrumental view, held by Millard Erickson, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and Walter Martin, argues that only Christ's death has salvific value. On the instrumental view of the Life of Christ, the fine points of the hypostatic union are irrelevant; all that matters is that Jesus have a physical body with blood in it so that God can spill the blood on the cross. Winger’s mentor, William Lane Craig, espouses a Christology that necessitates the instrumental view, meaning that Winger--if he wishes to be consistent--cannot draw upon the soteriological view. Drawing upon Francis Turretin’s works, Winger avers that there are five conditions under which it is just to punish the innocent in place of the guilty. To the claim that one such condition is that the innocent person volunteer himself, Paul notes that even in pagan religions, human sacrifices were sometimes voluntary. Aztecs considered it a great honor to allow themselves to be sacrificed to their national god, Huitzilopochtli. Paul then faults Winger for his critique of Catholicism and its use of legal fictions, pointing out the irony that Winger, who is known for critiquing Catholicism, is also using the concept of legal fictions in his own theology. Paul uses the example of the encounter between Pizarro and Atahualpa, the Inca leader, and the presentation of the Bible as a pretext for violence. The discussion turns to the relationship between human positive law and divine positive law. We learn that human positive law can contradict divine positive law and that there are Christian legal organizations that support people prosecuted for refusing to follow corrupt human positive laws that contradict divine positive law. Citing two Supreme Court cases where the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) successfully defended Christians against state laws that conflicted with their religious beliefs, Paul says that any human positive law conflicting with divine positive law is null and void. One must also distinguish between code law and common law. The Bible presents a model of justice based on code law, where statutes dictate specific punishments for specific crimes. This contrasts with English common law, which is based on judge-made precedent, a pattern that the Bible does not model.

The second-to-last component in the machinery of penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA) is the idea that Christ--as the perfect, unblemished sacrifice--satisfies God’s wrath against sin once and for all, thereby obviating any further need for animal sacrifices. This claim (#16 in the PSA model) underlies the idea that Christ fulfills the entirety of the Old Testament sacrificial system, a belief that is ubiquitous across Christianity, including Protestantism, Catholicism, and even in the Orthodox Study Bible. Claim 16 creates inconsistencies with other aspects of the PSA system. Anselm argued that the atonement should mirror the fall and be as painful as possible, which is incompatible with the idea that Christ represents all the Old Testament animals offered in sacrifice, as these were supposedly killed quickly in a painless manner. Additionally, PSA asserts that Christ became a literal sin and a curse on the cross, raising questions about how he could simultaneously be an unblemished offering for mankind's sins. Those discrepancies expose PSA as a false system, lacking systematic consistency. Paul Vendredi also laments the ignorance of prominent Christian scholars towards basic Old Testament festivals, such as the misunderstanding of Passover being synonymous with Yom Kippur and the swapping of the Passover lamb for the Scapegoat. He notes the irony of highly educated theologians mistaking sheep for goats, creating a false system of theology whereof even the most rudimentary of farming experience would have disabused them. PSA is also undermined by the biblical references to Jesus as a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek offered bread and wine, while Jesus reinstituted the sacrifice of bread and wine at the Last Supper. However, Jesus did not seem to hold the priests of his era, who offered animal sacrifices in the temple, in high regard. The speaker cites Matthew 22;29 where Jesus criticizes the priests for not knowing the scriptures. Jesus also predicted the destruction of the temple where these sacrifices were offered. Furthermore, when Jesus entered the temple, he drove out the animals used for sacrifice and overthrew the tables of the money changers, making the buying and selling of sacrificial animals impossible. Regarding PSA’s ransom-to-God theory, Paul emphasizes that the New Testament does not specify who the ransom is paid to, raising speculation about whether it is paid to Satan, death, or God. Despite various interpretations from church fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus suggested that the term is used in a stipulative sense to mean rescue rather than a strict lexical definition. Indeed, the Greek word "lithron," translated as "ransom," more accurately means "rescue" or "deliverance," as shown in the Septuagint’s rendering of Exodus 6;6, where God promises to “ransom” Israel from Egypt.

Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi continue their exploration of Penal-Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), focusing on claims eight and nine. The discussion is based on Anselm's perspective, which suggests that God cannot forgive sin without first punishing the sinner or collecting the debt of sin from an alternate source. This idea is rooted in the notion that all sin is a debt owed to God for robbed honor (claim five)and that infants are also believed to owe this debt (claim six). Anselm, believing God to be strictly just, states that God could not forgive the debt without sacrificing a substitute. Psalm 135;6 states that God can do whatever He pleases. The hosts suggest that this verse implies that God had various options to redeem mankind. One interpretation called the "restored-icon model" suggests that the second person of the Trinity, in the form of Jesus, restores the human icon by uniting all component parts of human nature with the divinity, restoring the image of God that was shattered by Satan. According to the Restored-Icon Model, Christ assumed human characteristics, including soul, mind, and will, in order to heal them. However, William Lane Craig, a proponent of PSA, asserts that Jesus had no human soul or will. This contradicts the Restored Icon Model's claims and, as Paul suggests, makes the incarnation's meaning and merit questionable. Craig's PSA theory posits that God the Father's wrath was satisfied through the spilling of Jesus' blood. The speaker contends that this view reduces Jesus to merely a "bag of blood" stapled to the second person of the Trinity, undermining the concept of Christ's healing and redemptive work. Warren and Paul clarify that they do not deny the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross or disrespect the extent of what Christ accomplished. They note their concern with the simplistic understanding of Christ's blood as a mere symbol of atonement. They propose that the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection had deeper meaning beyond the shedding of blood alone. They acknowledge the resistance they may face from Protestant perspectives and emphasize the importance of acknowledging Christ's full humanity, including his human mind, soul, and will, when considering the extent of his redemptive work. While Anselm's eighth claim is that God could have canceled mankind's debt by any means He desired, his ninth claim is that God is strictly just and cannot forgive a debt without first collecting it from an alternate source and cannot forgive a sinner without first punishing him or her. The hosts argue that these claims create a "lexical mess," as they are not consistent with the concept of forgiveness. Paul highlights three parables in the Bible that refute Anselm's thesis: the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and the Parable of the Uneven Debts. In the parables, forgiveness occurs without collection of the debt elsewhere. Paul emphasizes that the belief that God cannot forgive sin until it is first punished is not consistent with the forgiveness depicted in these parables. Anselm's tenth claim tells us the atonements must mirror the fall and be as painful as possible. Anselm's first clause, suggesting the cross mirrors the tree of knowledge, is considered acceptable, though not a hard stance. However, it is the second clause that raises concerns. This claim, which holds that since the fall was easy, the atonement must be extremely painful, has influenced both Catholic and Protestant theology. Paul criticizes this notion, stating that there is no biblical support for the idea that the atonement must be brutal and barbaric in comparison to the fall. He uses Isaac Newton's law of equal and opposite reactions as an example, questioning how the easy fall could result in the necessity of an overly painful redemption. He also notes that finding explicit statements of this idea is challenging, though it is implicit in many discussions about the brutal killing of Christ. The eleventh idea in the PSA model claims that the only commodity capable of recompensing God for his offended honor and making him propitious towards humanity is the shed blood of a god-man. The atonement school uses Romans 3;25, among other verses, as the proof text for this belief. However, the same word used for propitiation in the New Testament, hilasterion, can also be translated as “mercy seat,” leading to a dilemma in translation. Paul suggests that the answer lies in John 3:16, a verse stating that God has always been propitiously disposed toward humanity--which means God does not need to be propitiated! Paul cautions that interpreting certain Bible verses, such as 1 Peter 3;18, outside of their original context can lead to absurdities. One example is the idea that God himself inflicted the torture upon Christ during the crucifixion. Another issue is how a finite human nature can pay off an infinite debt, which is a problem, as Anselm's doctrine suggests that it is the human nature of Christ that pays the debt. This leads to inconsistencies and an overall house of cards argument that collapses.

Warren McGrew and Paul Vendredi examine the 13th, 14th, and 15th claims of penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA). Claim 13 involves God’s pouring out His wrath on the crucified Christ and the concept of double imputation. The atonement school uses Isaiah 53;4-6 as a key proof text. In response, Paul cites a hermeneutic rule that dictates that clear Bible passages serve as the controlling interpretation when dealing with similar but less clear passages on the same topic. Citing Proverbs 17;15, 25;26, and 24;24, Paul demonstrates that it is an abomination to justify the wicked while punishing the just. Moreover, the New Testament interprets Isaiah 53;4-6 in Matthew 8;14-17, where Jesus is portrayed as fulfilling the prophecy by healing the sick and casting out demons rather than atoning for sins while being crucified. Paul also points to 1 Peter 2;24-25, which quotes Isaiah 53. The context in which the passage is embedded portrays Christ as an example to follow by suffering patiently, having done no sin. (This is a moral-exemplar model, not PSA.) The discussion moves on to claim 14, the claim that Christ became a literal curse and the embodiment of sin on the cross. This interpretation is untenable given its contradiction with Hebrews 7;26, which states that Jesus is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. Paul also challenges the use of Galatians 3;13 and 2 Corinthians 5;21 as proof texts for this interpretation, arguing that they lead to absurdities and blasphemy. Furthermore, Paul contends that this theory is philosophically untenable, as it is based on hypostatizing abstractions, such as the word "curse." Warren and Paul then related their shared experience that even supporters of PSA experience disbelief when confronted with their mentors calling Christ accursed. The 15th claim says that God turns his back on the crucified Christ. As instantiation of this, Warren plays audio of R.C. Sproul calling the crucified Christ the sum total of all human sins, the most obscene being in the universe. God, according to Sproul, then turned away from Christ as if turning away from sin itself. Paul and Warren turn to the last words spoken by Jesus on the cross. While there is controversy over the order of Jesus' words, there is agreement that his last words were "Into thy hands I commend my spirit." Several prominent atonement schoolers, including John MacArthur, also agree that Jesus' last words were these. But how could Jesus commend his spirit into the hands of the Father if the Father had previously forsaken him? The answer lies in Jesus’ quoting Psalm 22, specifically the first line "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The speaker explains that this quote was not a cry of dereliction but a pointer to the entire psalm, which ends with a cry of hope. Paul illustrates this by referring to Psalm 23, "The Lord is my shepherd," and explains that in the ancient context, quoting the first few words of a Psalm would trigger the entire passage in the listener's memory. In modern times, this contextual understanding is lost, leading to misinterpretations of textual references.

Anselm and Augustine, who significantly influenced the penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA) model, did not delve into the issue of Old-Testament animal sacrifices. The modern atonement school (primarily Protestants and some converted Catholics) proposes that the Old-Testament sacrificial system was established because debts to God required payment in blood (citing Leviticus 17;11 and Hebrews 9;22 as proof texts). Paul Vendredi suggests that the sacrifices prior to the Golden Calf were a form of iconoclasm, a way for God to break the Hebrews from their idolatrous connection to Egyptian gods through the sacrifice of sheep and bulls. After the Exodus, God instituted sacrifices as a punishment for Hebrew apostasy, which is evident in the different treatment of Jewish and Gentile lepers. In Mark 1;44, Christ requires a Jewish leper to offer the animal sacrifice specified in Leviticus 14, while Elisha requires a Gentile leper to do nothing more than bathe in the river Jordan (2 Kings 5;10). Why, then, does the Bible calls these sacrifices “atonement” if they are punitive in nature? Maimonides, a medieval Jewish scholar, may have the best answer to this question. According to Maimonides, each time the concept of atonement appears in the Old Testament, it should be understood as a "gracious ruse"; that is to say, God allowed the Hebrews--who were deeply rooted in the pagan belief of appeasing an angry god with animal sacrifices--to continue this practice under the assumption that they were making amends for their sins. However, the New Testament explicitly states that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins (Hebrews 10;4). Therefore, Paul suggests that the use of the term atonement in the Old Testament must be taken metaphorically. The term atonement is not limited to instances of animal sacrifice; it can also mean simply cleansing or consecration of inanimate objects. Paul cites various instances in the Old Testament where atonement was made without the shedding of blood. The Old Testament lists the payment of a shekel, offering fine flour, pouring out oil, the scapegoat that escaped alive, non-bloody liturgical ceremonies, incense offerings, plundered treasures, iconoclasm, good deeds, and kindness to the poor as non-bloody alternative means of atonement. This list challenges the Protestant understanding of PSA, as it suggests that God interacted with people where they were, allowing animal sacrifice as an accommodation to the Hebrews’ pagan mindset. In his book "Summa Theologica," Thomas Aquinas, a medieval doctor of the Catholic Church, also addressed the issue of animal sacrifices and their role in atonement. Aquinas, known for his fair representation of opposing views, addresses objections similar to those raised by Maimonides. However, the answers he provides in the Summa Theologica are not convincing. Admiring Aquinas for his logical and systematic approach to theology, Paul finds it noteworthy that Aquinas' arguments fall short.

Although Augustine of Hippo is not a name that theologians associate with penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA), the dogma would not exist without him, as Anselm of Canterbury built his medieval model of atonement atop Augustine’s three anthropological ideas of original sin, total depravity, and infant depravity. Paul begins with the definition of soteriology, which deals with theories of salvation, and anthropology, which pertains to theories concerning humankind. Augustine, a North-African theologian whose dates are AD 354-430, is credited with formulating the anthropology that underpins the PSA model of atonement. Augustine's anthropology is characterized by the beliefs in original sin, total depravity, and infant depravity. Anselm of Canterbury, a medieval theologian (1033-1109), built upon Augustine's anthropology and presented nine soteriological claims that form the foundation of the medieval and modern penal substitutionary model of atonement. However, as noted by the hosts, several of Anselm's claims are not biblically sound and were influenced by the cultural climate of the time. Nonetheless, Anselm did not introduce these ideas in a vacuum, and they were based on the already esteemed Augustinian anthropology. Augustine's writings account for 21% of the writings in the Schaff collection of Church Fathers, underlining his substantial impact on both Catholicism and Protestantism. Original sin, the first claim in PSA, stems from Augustine's teachings on mankind's guilt due to Adam's sin. However, as Paul points out, the biblical refutation of this claim in Ezekiel 18:20, Jeremiah 31:30, and Deuteronomy 24:16 states that every person is responsible for his or her own sin and shall bear the consequences thereof himself or herself. Where did Augustine get such an obviously unbiblical notion as original sin? The answer is that he got it from reading a questionable translation of Romans through Manichean-colored lenses. The hosts’ ensuing discussion of the Latin and Greek renderings of Romans 5;21 is precising yet gripping. Total depravity, though linked to John Calvin, originates in Augustine’s writings. Augustine used Psalm 51;5 as evidence of total depravity: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." However, Paul points out that a different interpretation can be found in Romans 2;14, where it is suggested that Gentiles, who do not have the law, still naturally follow the principles contained within it. Indeed, the Augustinian perspective raises questions about the existence of natural law and universal moral values. Furthermore, Paul questions the interpretation of Psalm 51:5, suggesting alternative interpretations that do not embrace the idea of inheriting a sinful nature. Paul uses the case of Jephthah, a Biblical character who was the son of a prostitute and was rejected by his siblings, suggesting that David might likewise have been illegitimate. Regarding infant depravity, Paul argues that Augustinians struggle to reconcile this belief with their opposition to abortion and misunderstand the purpose of baptism for babies. Although baptism is believed to wash away sins, babies do not have actual sins. Paul explains that baptism has three aspects: initiation, identification, and purification. The initiation and identification aspects apply to both adults and babies, as they mark the entrance into the covenant community and the identification with Christ, respectively. The purification aspect, which signs the washing away of sins, does not apply to babies since they do not have sin. Paul uses Colossians 2:11-13 to illustrate these concepts.

Paul Vendredi joins Idol Killer host Warren McGrew as they continue their examination of penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA), now focusing upon Anselm’s contributions to the model. Anselm expanded on Augustine of Hippo's first three claims by introducing three new tenets. Starting with claim number four, Anselm asserted that any sin, no matter how small, infinitely offends God due to God's high status as the one offended. This idea has been expanded upon by modern atonement theologians who describe any sin as an act of cosmic treason against God. Claim number five posits that all sin can be understood as a debt we owe to God due to having robbed Him of honor. Finally, claim number six states that infants also owe this debt, despite their inability to commit sin. The recurring theme in Anselm's claims is the immense offense caused by sinning against the infinite God. The hosts explore the background of Anselm's life during the High Middle Ages, focusing on significant events that occurred during his formative years. Anselm lived during a time of great change, including the schism between the Eastern and Western churches in 1054 and the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Just prior to Anselm's birth, the Church had convoked the “Peace of God” and “Truce of God” councils to protect the vulnerable from noble violence. This period was consumed with the idea of social hierarchy, the royal family being at the top, followed by nobles, knights, the middle class, peasants, and agricultural slaves. Despite natural law's emphasis on equal justice under the law, Anselm's atonement theory held that some individuals merited more justice than others. Paul hypothesizes that Anselm's theological background and the socio-political climate of the High Middle Ages influenced his belief in an unequal distribution of justice. Warren concurs with Paul, criticizing Anselm’s for portraying God as more of a ruler than a merciful and just being, thereby distorting God's true nature. Paul also highlights concerns over anthropomorphic elements in Anselm's ideas, like God being harmed by human actions, and unequal treatment based on societal status. Warren, though holding to a softer position on immutability, points to certain verses in Jeremiah and Malachi as evidence of God's disapproval of unequal weights and measures. Debate ensues over the interpretation of certain biblical passages regarding the transmission of sins and guilt from parents to children. Paul notes that while Jeremiah 31;30 states that each person bears the responsibility for his own lawlessness, Jeremiah 32;18 implies that the sins of the fathers are passed on to their children. However, Paul notes that 32;18 cannot be read in a literal sense to mean that children inherit their parents' guilt, as this would contradict the former passage. Instead, Paul suggests that the "ramifications" or "byproducts" of the father's sins are passed on to the children, not the guilt itself.

Mike Winger has made a name for himself as a Christian YouTuber, producing scores of professionally shot, cogently argued lectures. These high-quality productions have attracted him a sizeable and fiercely loyal following. Given the quality of his work, how surprising it was that his series on penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA) proved so poorly argued! In this series, podcaster Paul Vendredi joins Idol Killer host Warren McGrew to dissect Winger’s defense of PSA. PSA comprises three elements. The first element, penalty, means that Jesus was punished for sin in place of sinners. The second element, substitution, means that the crucified Jesus was given the status of sinfulness, while sinners are given the status of righteousness. The third element, atonement, means that the death of Christ recompenses God for the debt of sin. Paul begins his critique asserting that Winger incorrectly associates the work of Christ with the Western concept of PSA, whereas Eastern Christianity has never made this association. Winger also commits the fallacy of anachronism by associating the idea of penalty with the first coming of Christ, which is actually associated with healing and restoration in the Bible. It is the SECOND coming of Christ that is associated with judgement and penalty. Paul next criticizes the idea of imputation, as the Bible teaches that it is an abomination to condemn the innocent, justify the wicked, spill innocent blood, and commit injustice. These teachings are clear indications that imputation is not allowed in God's economy. Despite this, proponents of PSA argue that God can reverse any proposition by adding the phrase "But God can do this!"--a form of special pleading. Warren then directs the discussion to the concept of ransom. Contrary to the common understanding that the term implies a payment made to free captives, the original meaning in the Bible is simply "rescue." Paul cites the use of the Greek word "lithron" in the Old and New Testaments, which can mean both ransom and rescue. He also rejects the idea that Satan or God require payment for atonement, citing the same writings. One should question the use of the term "atonement" to describe the work of Christ, as the word is of recent vintage. The earliest recorded use of the word in print is 1513. Moreover, this word is one of the few English theological terms that does not derive from Greek or Latin, but rather Anglo-Saxon roots. This raises suspicions about the legitimacy of the concept and the word used to describe it. The hosts argue that Anselm is the one who first systematized this doctrine around 1100 AD. They criticize the idea that this theory was the heart of the Gospel since it took so long for it to be recognized. They also question the implication that the church was in apostasy for 1100 years before Anselm's work.