NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG

Home
Monday, February 2, 2009
Penal Substitution Debate - Affirmative Rebuttal Essay
Penal Substitution Debate - Affirmative Rebuttal Essay

By Turretin Fan

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to
minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Jerome (circa A.D. 347-420) writing about Matthew 20:28 stated: �He does not say
that he gave his life for all, but for many, that is, for all those who would
believe.� Because he has given his life as a penal substitute for the elect (an
equivalent group to those who will believe), all the elect will live. This concept
of particular redemption ties into the doctrine of penal substitution rather than
the alternative of pure undirected commercial payment.

Nick has provided a very thoughtful and well-organized constructive essay. One
advantage to the reader from this organization is that I have attempted to provide
parenthetical indications back to the appropriate section of the constructive
essay, to show how each section is addressed. While it was well organized, it
appears to have a large number of unsupported assertions. In the case of many
verses that are referenced, it seems that the attempt has been to find verses to
deny penal substitution, without a thought to the consequences of what those verses
would mean if they denied penal substitution. Where the verses seem important to
the debate, I have tried to address them as thoroughly as possible, so that it
should be clear what the relevant Scriptural teachings are.

The Mosaic sacrifices did operate in a penal substitution framework (cf. NC1).

This can be seen in the very first sacrifice appointed by Moses, the Passover (cf.
NC1d). In the Passover, the lamb was slain so that the firstborn son would not be
slain. The lamb was killed and its blood drained. The blood was then sprinkled
(using a hyssop branch) onto the side posts and top of the door way of the house.
The point of this should be clear. The angel of God was coming, if there was no
blood on the door, there would be blood on the floor: the firstborn would be
killed. If there was blood on the door (which showed, thereby, that the lamb had
been killed, for the life of the flesh is in the blood, Leviticus 17:11), the LORD
would pass over that door, and not permit the destroyer to kill the firstborn. The
lamb was not just killed, though, it had to be roasted specifically with fire (fire
is the usual metaphor for God�s wrath, see, for example, Exodus 22:24 and 32:10,
and especially Psalm 21:9), and eaten completely, with anything uneaten being burnt
up. Thus, the wrath of God came upon the Egyptians, but not on the Israelites. The
lamb was a penal substitute. The lamb died so that the firstborn would not die. It
took the place and bore the penalty of the firstborn (in that it bore the penalty,
not in a matter of exact correspondence: after all, we are not told precisely how
God killed the firstborn of the Egyptians).

This can also be seen in the annual �day of the atonement� sacrifices (cf. NC1c),
which were a focal point and a high holy day in the Old Testament administration,
and are especially relied upon as showing Christ to be the better high priest, in
Hebrews. The ceremony involved is quite elaborate and is set forth in Leviticus 16.
In the first place, the high priest (Aaron initially) had to make atonement for
himself, through the burnt offering of a ram, and a sin offering of a young
bullock. Once Aaron had removed his own sins, he then took two goats. Randomly, one
goat was selected to be a burnt offering, and one goat was selected to be a
scapegoat. The first goat was killed, and then Aaron laid his hands on the head of
the live goat, confessed all of the sins of Israel, putting them on the head of the
goat (Cf. Leviticus 16:21 and NC1a), and then that goat was taken outside the camp
of the Israelites into a desolate place and abandoned. The sacrificed goat, whose
blood had been placed on the horns of the altar, was likewise taken outside the
camp and the entire remaining animals (the skins, the flesh, and even the dung �
the fat having been burnt on the altar) were completely burnt up. God�s wrath
against sin is graphically portrayed as being satisfied in these two goats, the one
being separated from the presence of God, the other being killed, its blood spilled
and finally its body consumed by fire. Again, we see the punishments for sin being
exercised upon the sacrificial victims in the place of the beneficiaries.

The same penal substitution can be seen in the hand/head mode of transference used
in the Mosaic sacrificial system (cf. NC1a). As noted above, this mode was used on
the live goat in the day of atonement sacrifices. It was also used in the
sacrifices to hallow the priests (Exodus 29:10, 15, and 19), the voluntary
individual atonement sacrifices (Leviticus 1:4), the individual peace offerings
(Leviticus 3:2 (cow), 8 (sheep), and 13 (goat)), the congregational sin offerings
(Leviticus 4:15), the king�s sin offerings (Leviticus 4:24), the individual sin of
ignorance offerings (Leviticus 4:29 (goat), and 33 (lamb)), and we could continue
on with further examples, if space permitted.

In case, it is not clear that �upon the head� symbolism related to punishment of
sins, this may be confirmed from 1 Kings 2:33, which employs the same symbolism,
clearly showing the penal sanction/guilt relationship especially contrasted with
peace: �Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head
of his seed for ever: but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and
upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the LORD.�

Even in the case of the grain offering of fine flower (cf. NC1b), one can see the
penal substitution taking place. There is no head upon which to lay hands, and
there is no blood to spill, but a tenth is consumed with fire, just a similar
proportion of an ordinary offering would have been. The idea of bread standing for
flesh should come as a surprise to no New Testament reader (see, especially, John
6:51).

Nick makes reference to the fact that sometimes the sacrifices are described as
having a �sweet savour� (KJV) or �pleasing aroma� in a more modern phrasing (cf.
NC1e). Nick, however, does not seem to understand why this would be something that
would please God. The smell of the burnt offering (Genesis 8:21, Exodus 29:18, and
many more) is described as a �sweet savour� to God, but this should be understood
to be because the smoke shows the consumption, the punishment of fire being
executed.

The New Testament likewise connects Christ to this burnt offering, showing that
believers are accepted on behalf of the savour (pleasing aroma) of Christ�s
sacrifice (2 Corinthians 2:14-16 and Ephesians 5:2). Christ�s love for us is
exhibited in his death that was pleasing to God as a propitiation for the guilt of
our sins.

Without passing sentence on the quotations from the various authors cited by Nick
(Cf. NC2), I would address very briefly the issues raised. Even if, as Nick
suggests (Cf. NC2a), Christ only suffered physical pain and death (and not any
spiritual agony), still the wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23) and Christ suffer
the punishment of death. The punishment of death is one expression of God�s wrath,
as expressed at Psalm 78:31, �The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest
of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel.� This also addresses the false
dichotomy Nick raises between physical death and hell (NC2b): physical death is
also an expression of the wrath of God. Furthermore, Jesus statement �Eli, Eli,
lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?� (Mat
27:46), is reasonably understood to show for us that Jesus felt the wrath of God
upon him on the cross (Cf. NC3f). Jesus� own words, therefore, also contradict
Nick�s argument that the Father turning his wrath on His Son is unthinkable (NC2c).

I appreciate that Nick has done some of my work in identifying some of the relevant
passages that demonstrate penal substitution (NC3).

Isaiah 53 is one of the clearest passages in this regard (Cf. NC3a). That this
passage refers to Christ is confirmed by the New Testament and admitted by Nick.
One should read the chapter to see how it flows and fits together. There are
several places where the fact of penal substitution can be seen. First, in verse 4,
it is stated that he has �borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.� These things
are punishments given to men on account of sin. Jesus did not have sin, and
therefore when Jesus suffered griefs and sorrows during his life, he was doing so
on our behalf, on account of our sins. He was being punished for us.

Verse 5 continues this theme more explicitly saying states that Jesus was wounded
for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. It is hard to imagine how
the concept of penal substitution could be expressed more clearly than that. Verse
6 likewise states that the LORD has laid on Christ the iniquity of all of us. This
is explained, in context, by Christ being oppressed, afflicted, and led like a lamb
to the slaughter (vs. 7) and into prison and ultimately to death like the wicked,
although he hadn�t done anything wrong (vss. 8-9).

Verse 10 continues by pointing out that it pleased the LORD to bruise and grieve
him (recall verses 4-5), thereby making him an �offering for sin.� This will be a
successful offering. God saw (as prophesied) the travail (the suffering) of Christ
and was satisfied with that. By knowledge of him, Christ will justify many (the
elect), because he bears their iniquities (because he suffers in their place).

Finally, verse 12 is the capstone, sealing the discussion, pointing out that Christ
achieves victory through his death, bears the sins of many, and makes (and will
make) intercession for them. This ties into the discussion of Christ in Romans 8:34
and Hebrews 7:25.

Galatians 3:13 is another great verse that demonstrates the reality of penal
substitution (Cf. NC3b).

Galatians 3:10-14
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is
written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in
the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the
sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is
not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is
written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of
Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith.

The curse of the law is the punishment that comes from the law, namely death. This
�curse� as can be seen from verse 10 is the punishment for failing to keep the law.
Christ kept the law perfect, but was cursed for us � he received the curse of the
law in our place. It is true that this was role of Christ was obedience on his
part. We (Reformed theologians) generally use the two categories of active and
passive obedience. The labels aren�t the best, but �active� obedience is obeying
the moral law of God, whereas passive obedience is obeying the will of God with
respect to suffering humiliation, suffering, pain, agony, and death. Those
sufferings are the punishment for sin. Christ had no sin of his own, however. Thus,
those sufferings are for our sins. They are Christ serving as our penal substitute.
He is punished so that we are not punished.

Another verse that clearly demonstrates the fact that Jesus is the penal substitute
of the elect is 1 Peter 2:24 (Cf. NC3c).

1 Peter 2:21-25
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving
us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was
guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he
suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead
to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye
were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of
your souls.

While 1 Peter 2:21 might seem to sound like Christ�s suffering and death were
merely exemplary (it is an example to us � see also 1 John 3:16), verse 24 makes
clear that he bore our sins (that is to say, the punishment for their guilt) in his
own body on the cross. He died for sin, and thus we are dead to sin. He was
whipped, and by his blood we are healed. Notice how Peter makes reference to Isaiah
53:5 here (which we�ve already discussed above).

Nick seems to argue that Peter is speaking about the value of us enduring unjust
suffering. Nick seems to suppose that because this is the case with us, that it
cannot be different for Christ. In fact, however, Christ�s death (which is set
forth as an example to us in our suffering) is distinguishable in that it is
vicarious. When we suffer for doing what is right, we are not bearing the sins of
others.

Nick also notes that the term �bore� doesn�t necessarily automatically mean imputed
guilt. The only other senses that Nick identifies, however, physically carrying and
offering a sacrifice, are not applicable to the context. The sins are not being
physically carried or offered as a sacrifice. Instead, the punishment of the sins
was endured by Christ.

A fourth passage that demonstrates penal substitution is 2 Corinthians 5:21 (Cf.

NC3d), which states:

2 Corinthians 5:18-21
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,
and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in
Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto
them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are
ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in
Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him.

God reconciled us to himself by Christ on the cross. He has not imputed our
trespasses to us, but to Christ instead. That demonstrates a vicarious atonement.
Although Nick asserts that imputation (the word, at least) is not in the verse (in
verse 21), the word is in the immediately preceding verse, which is a better
context than Romans 8:3 and 2 Corinthians 8:9. It is important to note that
Christ�s work is not exhausted by the concept of penal substitution. That is to
say, the sacrifice of Christ is also an example of love (as noted above) and it is
a sin offering and satisfaction for sin (as Nick has admitted).
Matthew 26:39 references the cup of God�s wrath (Cf. NC3e), but this doesn�t
necessarily establish penal substitution by itself. It should be noted that there
is more than one �cup� mentioned in the New Testament, although Nick seems to want
to treat them all as one.

Nick presents (NC4) what he believes is the Roman position (he calls it �Catholic�
but I respectfully disagree with using that label for Rome). The concept of
satisfaction is not necessarily by good works � in fact the Biblical view of
satisfaction is not that of good works. Satisfaction is justice being satisfied.
Justice is satisfied when a debt is paid � when a crime is punished. The view of
satisfaction is merely a debt to be paid by good works is a view of satisfaction
that might be characterized as a �purely commercial� view. This is in contrast to
the Reformed view, which embraces both the commercial and the penal analogies. The
primary analogy, however, as can be seen from the weight of the Mosaic ceremonies,
is the penal analogy.

Nick cited Numbers 25:1-13 as allegedly an example of this commercial satisfaction

view (NC4a). In Numbers 25:1-13, however, the only �good deed� done was for
Phinehas to exercise justice against one of the couples of those who had been
involved in the Moabitish fornication/idolatry. It seems more reasonable to suppose
that God�s justice was satisfied by the execution of the death penalty rather than
the execution being an otherwise counter-balancing good work.

Nick cited Deuteronomy 9:16-21 as another alleged example of a commercial

satisfaction (NC4b), and calls his act an atonement. The Scriptures, however, do
not use that description, although they do speak of Moses turning away God�s wrath.
How did he do so? He did so by making intercession for them, and begging for mercy.
Psalm 106, which Nick references for this verse and the previously considered
verse, explains that the examples provided in the Psalm are examples of God showing
his mercy and power (Psalm 106:8 Nevertheless he saved them for his name's sake,
that he might make his mighty power to be known.)

The same may be said of Nick�s argument from Numbers 16:42-49 (NC4d). In that case,
God showed mercy, but there was no commercial satisfaction. It seems better,
indeed, to view the incense mentioned in the text as serving to God as a reminder
of the sacrificial system. In any event, as already noted:

Psalm 106:43-45
43 Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel, and
were brought low for their iniquity. 44 Nevertheless he regarded their affliction,
when he heard their cry: 45 And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented
according to the multitude of his mercies.

Nick references Job�s intercession for his friends (NC4c), but of course, these
were sacrifices being offered. The idea that God would only accept the sacrifice at
Job�s hand relates to the fact that the priest himself must first be pure in God�s
sight before he can offer a sacrifice that God will accept for others. God�s
insistence that Job offer the sacrifice is God�s vindication of Job against the
revilings of his friends, not an issue of the righteousness of the person being
considered a merit.

Nick�s translation of Proverbs 16:6 is rather odd (NC4e). A better translation is:

Proverbs 16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD
men depart from evil.

This verse is one of numerous verses in Proverbs that form couplets: that is to
say, the same thought is expressed in slightly different ways, twice. Thus, we can
see that the �purging� going on here relates to a person�s character � how his life
is improved. It relates to sanctification rather than justification.

Proverbs 16:14 is in a little different context:

Proverbs 16:12-15
12 It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is
established by righteousness. 13 Righteous lips are the delight of kings; and they
love him that speaketh right. 14 The wrath of a king is as messengers of death: but
a wise man will pacify it. 15 In the light of the king's countenance is life; and
his favour is as a cloud of the latter rain.

The point of the proverb relates to speaking what is right in the ears of the king,
to gain his favor. How is this done?

Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

Nick�s penultimate argument is that the idea that salvation can be lost is
inconsistent with Penal Substitution (NC5). While this is a little bit of a rabbit
trail, Nick argues that if Penal Substitution is correct, then salvation cannot be
lost. The problem with Nick�s argument is that there are some verses that make
clear that Christ will raise up all those that Father have given to him, for
example:

John 6:38-40
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that
sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he
hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son,
and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the
last day.

Augustine (circa A.D. 354-430) expressed it well: �Surely his mercy must be
unlimited and his good will must know no bounds if he redeemed us with the blood of
his Son, when our sins had reduced us to nothing. He certainly made something
great, when he created man to his own image and likeness. But we wanted to become
nothing by sinning, and we derived mortality from our first parents, and became a
lump of sin, a lump of wrath, and yet he decided in his mercy to redeem us at such
a great price. For us he gave the blood of his only Son, who was born in innocence,
lived in innocence, died in innocence. After redeeming us at such a price, he will
scarcely wish those he has bought to perish. He did not buy us to destroy us; he
bought us to give us life. If our sins are too much for us, God does not disregard
the price he paid. It was a very great price he paid.�

What Augustine is expressing could frankly be applied as well to the commercial

view or simply the commercial aspect of the Reformed view (since redemption is a
commercial analogy). This demonstrates that the issue of perseverance of the saints
is mostly a moot point. Whether the atonement is a penal substitution or a merely
commercial accumulation, it should be intuitively obvious that God would not waste
such a great price that was paid.

When we combine that fact with the truth expressed by Jude, at verse 24 of his
catholic epistle, �Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to
present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy � .� God
is able to keep his elect from falling, and his very sending his Son was on account
of his love for them (see John 3:16). Therefore, we have good reason to believe
that the elect will preserve, because God both loves the elect, seeks their
salvation, and is able to assure it.
Nick�s attempted texts to the contrary can variously classified. Some are mistaken
interpretations of proverbs or analogies (5a, d, i, and f), some are based on false
assumptions about the range of meaning of Greek words (5b, j, and k), some are
based on an assumption that what is taught is works righteousness (5c and perhaps
5l), 5e seems irrelevant to the matter, some infer that salvation was lost in an
historical situation when the text does not say so (5g, 5h, and 5p), and the
remainder are based on warnings (5l, 5m, 5n, 5o, 5q, and 5r) that Nick seems to
believe have (1) true believers as the ones warned and (2) eternal damnation as the
consequence, with the assumption that if God uses these warnings to preserve the
elect from doing the warned-against thing, that somehow the warning is pointless.

If this debate were on the perseverance of the saints, it would be worthwhile

exploring each of these verses separately. As this is not on that topic, it should
suffice to note the general responses above, and a brief discussion of

Nick claims that 5j is something than which �I cannot think of a stronger thing
Paul could have said against Penal Substitution.� Nick notes that in 1 Corinthians
8:11 it is stated �And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for
whom Christ died?� Nick assumes that this is a reference to perishing in hell for
all eternity, but the context suggests something a lot less severe. The next verse
says: �But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye
sin against Christ.� The perishing involved with someone�s conscience being wounded
doesn�t seem to be exactly the same as someone burning in hell. Thus, if this is
the strongest passage Nick has, we may rightly conclude that the others are even
less conclusive.

Nick further claims that 5o �is one of the strongest passages against Penal
Substitution.� He claims that it says that if �Christians keep on sinning �no
sacrifice for sin remains� and that they can expect damnation,� in Hebrews 10:26-
29. There are several problems with Nick�s claim. First, the passage does not
simply say �keep on sinning� it says �sin willfully.� Second, the passage refers to
those with a �profession of faith� (vs. 23) not �faith� per se � a profession of
faith is a broader category. Third, the verses say that the people involved in this
heinous sin will be �worthy� of worse punishment, but it does not say they will
receive it. Fourth, the verses are phrased as a hypothetical, but it is not said
that this hypothetical will be fulfilled rather than serving as an effective
warning. Finally, a commercial satisfaction cannot handle an understanding of the
passage that would be problematic for the penal substitution view.

Finally, Nick presents a collection of miscellaneous objections (NC6). The first

objection (NC6a) is that vicarious substitution is not in any genuine justice
system. This could be disputed historically, but the Scriptural response is to note
the existence of the concept of a �surety.� A surety is someone who makes good for
another. This category is recognized in Scripture.

Second (NC6b), Nick objects that the idea that God cannot forgive without punishing
someone is illogical. Nick, however, has failed to consider that Justice requires
punishment and God is just. Nick has also overlooked that it can be (and is)
forgiveness to the sinner, even while it is payment by Christ.

Nick next objects that is blasphemous for Christ to pre-pay for sins that haven�t
been committed yet (NC6c), and further claiming that the sin would have to be
carried out to balance the books. The death of Christ, however, is a penal
substitution. It would have to be endured to save one sinner, or more sinners than
there are atoms in the universe. It is not a pure commercial satisfaction (this
much for that many). If it were (and isn�t that Nick�s claim), then perhaps Nick�s
objections would apply, although how Nick arrives at �blasphemy� from the idea of
pre-payment of sin is hard to follow, since he doesn�t explain.
Finally, Nick objects that a logical result of Penal Substitution is eternal
forgiveness (NC6d). Nick, however, has failed to distinguish between what the
redemption accomplished within the Trinity (especially as between the Father and
the Son) and the application of that redemption in time. Although all the elect
were redeemed on the cross (then was its accomplishment), that redemption was
applied in time.

In conclusion we can see that there is no Biblical reason to deny Penal

Substitution. It is the clear message of the sacrificial system that Christ
fulfilled. It is the clear message of the apostles as well. Finally, it can be
harmoniously understood with the rest of the Scriptures. That it seems to have been
the view of at least many of the fathers is just icing on the cake, as they are not
our rule of faith.

Nevertheless, I�ll let Ambrose (circa A.D. 339-97) have the last word : �Great,
therefore, is the mystery of Christ, before which even angels stood amazed and
bewildered. For this cause, then, it is thy duty to worship Him, and, being a
servant, thou oughtest not to detract from thy Lord. Ignorance thou mayest not
plead, for to this end He came down, that thou mayest believe; if thou believest
not, He has not come down for thee, has not suffered for thee. �If I had not come,�
saith the Scripture, �and spoken with them, they would have no sin: but now have
they no excuse for their sin. He that hateth Me, hateth My Father also.� Who, then,
hates Christ, if not he who speaks to His dishonor? � for as it is love�s part to
render, so it is hate�s to withdraw honor. He who hates, calls in question; he who
loves, pays reverence.�

-TurretinFan
Posted by Nick at 9:24 AM
Labels: Debate, Passive Obedience, Penal Substitution
Links to this post
Create a Link

Newer Post Older Post Home

Pope Leo XIII - Pray for us!
Pope Leo XIII - Pray for us!
"Most desirable is it that the whole of Theology should be animated by the use of
the Word of God. This is what the Fathers and great theologians of all ages have
desired to practice. It was chiefly out of the Sacred Writings that they
endeavoured to establish the Articles of Faith, and it was in them, together with
divine Tradition, that they found the refutation of heretical error and the
reasonableness of the truths of Catholicism."
Labels
2 Tim 3:16 (26)
Active Obedience (44)
Apologetics (186)
Augustine (15)
Blessed Virgin Mary (7)
Catholic Social Teaching (19)
Church Fathers (25)
Debate (42)
Do Protestants really care about the Bible? (11)
Eastern Orthodoxy (11)
Eucharist (11)
Evolution (1)
Holy Trinity (13)
Imputation (96)
Interesting (73)
Islam (2)
Jehovah's Witnesses (11)
Judaism (5)
Justification (107)
Liturgy (20)
Losing Salvation (14)
Marian Devotion (3)
Mormonism (8)
Papacy (22)
Passive Obedience (64)
Penal Substitution (68)
Pro-Life (12)
Protestantism (197)
Quickie Apologetics (41)
Reformed (117)
Salvation History (23)
Seventh Day Adventists (2)
Sola Fide (104)
Sola Scriptura (59)
Tradition (36)
Traditionalism (26)
Vatican II (1)
Search This Blog

Search
My Favorite Posts
The ultimate argument to use against Protestants
Index of my Debates
Imputed Righteousnesss in the New Covenant?
A concise refutation of Sola Fide
James White's fails to defend Faith Alone
Atonement according to Scripture
Council of Nicea proves Papacy
Protestant "essentials" versus "non-essentials"
1914 A.D. and Jehovah's Witnesses
Sola Scriptura is Unscriptural
Divorce is forbidden in Scripture
Sola Scriptura is self-refuting
Was Jesus damned in your place?
Enter your email to receive notification of new posts

Email address...
Submit
Subscribe to this blog
Posts
Comments
About Me
My photo
Nick
If you have anything you'd like to discuss via email, don't hesitate to ask!
View my complete profile
Blog Archive
? 2019 (1)
? 2018 (21)
? 2017 (14)
? 2016 (9)
? 2015 (5)
? 2014 (17)
? 2013 (76)
? 2012 (44)
? 2011 (35)
? 2010 (42)
? 2009 (16)
? November (1)
? October (1)
? May (1)
? April (4)
? March (4)
? February (2)
Negative Rebuttal - Penal Substitution Debate
Penal Substitution Debate - Affirmative Rebuttal E...
? January (3)
Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.