Eternally Forgiven? - More problems with Penal Substitution

There is a long standing debate within Protestantism (most especially Calvinism) on when the benefits of Christ's Life and Death are applied to the Elect. This is especially significant in light of the Protestant doctrine of Penal Substitution, which states Christ received the very punishment the elect deserved for their sins. The result of the Atonement, for Protestants, was actual (as opposed to potential) forgiveness. Because Penal Substitution is false and without Scriptural basis (e.g. see here and elsewhere on this blog), some might wonder why I'm talking about this. I think the main benefit of examining this issue is to highlight the fact Protestants can't agree on this key detail, and to suggest they can't agree because the real problem goes deeper, to their view of the Atonement (i.e. Penal Substitution) itself.

Sola Scriptura is Unscriptural

I believe that 2 Timothy 3:16f is the most important passage for Protestantism, because this passage is indispensable for their foundational doctrine, Sola Scriptura. Few other major doctrines rely so heavily on such meager evidence as this, and if this verse is the 'strongest' proof they have to offer, then to remove this 'option' from their apologetics toolbag would - without exaggeration - prove disastrous to their entire system. The focus of this article is to address a few short, yet very effective arguments against using 2 Timothy 3:16f in support of Sola Scriptura (SS).

Rebuttal of James White's Analysis of My "Silver Bullet" article.

It has come to my attention that James White has commented upon my Sola Fide article (which I described as a 'silver bullet' and would play an instrumental role in his conversion). The following are my comments to his radio show analysis of my arguments. In my response I will make approximate references to the minutes and seconds in which White addresses the various issues.

The Death Knell of Protestantism: Romans 4:3-5

Update 4-14-2010: see part 2 here.

Most readers with even a passing interest in apologetics are familiar with St Paul's words from Romans 4:3-5,

For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

This passage is critical to the doctrine of Sola Fide because it is where Protestants claim St Paul expressly lays down the doctrine of the 'Imputation of Christ's Righteousness' to the believer at the (one and only) moment of Justification, and that this Righteousness is received by faith. The standard and historic Protestant interpretation of "faith is counted as righteousness" is clearly stated in the Westminster Confession (XI:1):

Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

What this passage is saying is that the phrase "faith counted as righteousness" is not to be understood as 'faith itself is counted as righteousness,' but rather, 'faith receives Christ's Righteousness.' What this article will demonstrate is effectively a silver bullet right to the heart of this heresy.

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

One of the most popular and important publications of the Jehovah's Witnesses is a booklet titled "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" It is written in such a way as to make the doctrine of the Trinity appear to be illogical, unhistorical, and un-Biblical. Just flipping through it, it might seem pretty convincing, but a careful reader will immediately note some significant problems in the forms of (a) misrepresenting the actual doctrine, (b) misquoting sources, (c) citing skewed/biased sources, and (d) misreading Scriptural texts based on this inaccurate information. For more manifest JW errors on other doctrines, see this link (here).

One of the greatest shortfalls of the booklet is that while it relies heavily on what appear to be 'scholarly sources' to disprove the doctrine, there are almost no proper citations of references (e.g. only the title or name of a source is given), and worse yet, many of the sources are anti-Christian to begin with. This is not a good approach if one is attempting to make honest and objective arguments, for it does not allow the reader to verify a quote for context and accuracy, nor does it do any good to quote anti-Christian sources, for it would be nothing more than the special pleading fallacy.

This article will give an analysis of this booklet.