This article is not for the faint of heart. It’s subject is very technical and this will be very long. It is a discussion between a proponent of Penal Substitutionary atonement and someone that denies it for some form of … Continue reading Bahnsen or Spicy?: Essays on Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Ancapistan Press
I was asked to comment on this article: http://www.christcovenantcolorado.com/if-justification-is-immutable/ What these theologians fail to realize is that by using this argument, they undermine the doctrine of sola fide. Scripture is clear that the entrance into justification is by faith alone and … Continue reading If Justification is Immutable…
• The last supper was a real sacrifice in which Christ’s blood was poured out for our sins in the cup. (*610, 621, 1339) • In the Mass the bread & wine become the literal body & blood of Christ. … Continue reading Sacred Bites
https://twitter.com/DawahWise/status/1369341510928449547 https://twitter.com/DawahWise/status/1369318841101193217 This is a conversation with some Muslim apologists. He began to object to the notion of penal substitutionary atonement. This being that Christ an innocent party. He also argues the background of “human sacrifice” is pagan. I mentioned … Continue reading Islamic Atonement
Recently, a debate over limited atonement happened between Matt Slick and Sam Shamoun. In my estimation, Sam won the debate and it wasn’t close. Sam was nice enough to provide his notes to Slick prior to the debate. Slick looked … Continue reading Limited Attention?
[responsivevoice_button] I am going to comment on this article by a Catholic apologist that was referred to me by an Eastern Orthodox. It is on the issue of how to understand Rom. 4:4-8. http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/06/romans-46-8-crushes-calvinism-faith.html 4 What then shall we say was … Continue reading A Brief Defense of The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness
This continues our series of Thibodaux failing to comprehend why he is wrong. So, I’ll waste my time in another response: Our objector crashes and burns again. @I’ve stated that either this means the pardon is effectual unless one believes, which then means limited atonement is the case in a strange form. “Pardon is effectual unless one believes?” So we’re pardoned unless we believe, therefore if we believe, we’re not pardoned? I’m not sure this guy even knows what he’s saying…. This is a grammatical mistake in the prior article that was fixed. @”Or Christ atones for everyone in the … Continue reading Flying High , Crashing Hard
Our objector raises a few more confused objections, positing a nonsensical idea that the atonement somehow makes men ‘neutral,’ which I do not believe at all, nor know of anyone who does. @Either Christ atones for the sins of people when they believe and thus limited atonement is true in some regard. This is understood by the idea that the imputation both ways only occur when someone believes. But Christ died 2000 years ago for the sins of all as Thibodaux states. Christ atoned for the sins of all, but such that forgiveness is contingent upon faith in Him. Who … Continue reading Rekindling Owen
Thibodaux has written a response to me in his comments on his “Arminianism is cancer” article. Here are my thoughts: We have a little more from the same objector on Owen: @He argues that if you believe Christ dealt with sin/sin guilt or whatever makes mankind guilty before God, then it follows that all men must be saved. That follows if an only if the arguer assumes that the atonement saves people apart from faith. @It never states the people will be saved apart from faith. Indeed, it doesn’t state it outright, but he necessarily must presuppose as much for … Continue reading Thibodaux’s Atonement and Legal Fictions
The answer to the trilemma is fairly trivial: While refusal to believe is indeed a sin, the reason it keeps one from salvation is not due to it being a sin, but because unbelief, by definition, precludes belief in Christ, without which no one can be saved (Heb 11:6). As with all sins Christ died for, forgiveness for unbelief is only obtained through subsequent belief in Him. While Owen’s argument is trifling at best, his sophomoric reasoning isn’t the biggest problem here. While unstated, there is a premise both insidious and heretical that one must hold to make this argument … Continue reading Owen’s Argument
The Council 
You must be logged in to post a comment.