Why the Protestant Petros/petra argument is a joke.

A Catholic apologist named Sean showed me some good insights about the Petros-petra debate from Matthew 16:18. If you have never heard the Protestant claim, it's basically that when Jesus says "You are Peter [Petros] and upon this Rock [petra]" the Greek word Petros means "little pebble" while petra means "big rock". Thus, the Protestant is arguing that Jesus was not identifying Peter with "Rock," but rather contrasting Peter's littleness with the bigness of the Rock (i.e. Jesus). But this argument is simply ridiculous and desperate, and many Protestant scholars have rightly rejected it as well. 

John Calvin added the word "alone" to James 2:24

Most people are aware that Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 in his German translation, but few people are aware of an equally pernicious attempt to mess with God's Word done by John Calvin when he inserted the word "alone" into James 2:24. In reality, the word "alone" does not appear in the Greek of James 2:24. If one is going to be faithful to Scripture, a Catholic can no longer say that James opposes "justification by faith alone," because James never speaks of "faith alone" in the first place. But there's good news about this, because once we see why Protestants have continued to follow Calvin by adding the word "alone" to James 2:24, we will be able to refute Luther's heresy all the more easily.

Luther demonized the book of James because Luther rightly saw that James' Epistle was incompatible with Luther's interpretation of Paul's Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. He rightly figured that something had to give, and it made more sense to dispense with James' one Epistle than with all of Paul's writings. John Calvin would likely have rejected James as well, but he realized that something more important was at stake: the integrity of the canon of Scripture. Calvin rightly recognized that if Protestants threw out James, then it would be a free-for-all with the canon, which would demolish Sola Scriptura. So Calvin came up with an last ditch effort by adding the word "alone" to James 2:24 and thus (temporarily) saving both key doctrines of Scripture Alone and Justification by Faith Alone.

How the "warning passages" of Scripture end up leading to Calvinism's own apostasy.

One of the most humorous (and maddening) doctrines to discuss with a Calvinist is how Calvinism deals with the subject of apostasy (i.e. falling away from the Christian faith). Since Calvinism teaches that the 'true believer' can never lose his salvation, this naturally leads one to ask how Calvinism deals with the "warning passages" in Scripture. The "warning passages" are all those passages which warn about the danger against turning to sin, particularly grave sins which can cause one to be damned. An excellent example of this is Galatians 5:19-21, where Paul (for the second time) warns the Galatian Christians that if they commit grave sins they will be in jeopardy of not entering the kingdom of Heaven. 

Calvinists approach the "warning passages" with a sort of double standard. On the one hand they say that anyone who commits those sins was probably "never saved in the first place," while on the other hand they admit a 'true Christian' could fall into those sins but that God has pre-forgiven all their sins since the moment of their conversion and justification. (I discuss this inherent-contradiction in my Lordship Salvation post.) But there is yet another damning contradiction to go along with this, and this stems from the fact Protestants in general (and Calvinists in particular) reject the Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin. 

The problem the Calvinist is in is simply this: if there is no distinction between mortal and venial sin, then all sin is equally grave and thus equally damning. And if even Christians sin in "small" things many times each day (Prov 24:16), this leads to the terrifying realization that they're committing damnable sins throughout each day. This error and failure to follow the Church caused Luther to be deeply distressed, and logically so, which in turn was passed onto Calvin and eventually most all Protestants. This forced Luther and Calvin into having to invent the doctrine of the "Imputation of Christ's Righteousness," where Christ's Righteousness would "cover" the believer and effectively hide their daily repeated (mortal) sins from God's sight. Protestants call this God "not imputing" sin, meaning God knows you commit all these grave sins each day, but since you're "covered" by Jesus' righteousness then God will graciously not count you guilty for them. But this only compounds the problem at hand rather than alleviate it. 

Since the Calvinist Christian is committing the very damnable sins warned against in places like Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5:3-5, and 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6, the Calvinist really cannot explain how these are "warnings" at all if they're virtually inescapable even by Christians. This all but makes these "warnings" complete jokes and naturally should lead one to reject the Calvinist view in virtue of the fact Calvinism reduces to absurdity on this point. The only way to explain these texts is to recognize the mortal and venial sin distinction, which is why these texts are clearly singling out certain grave sins and not speaking of every sin being damnable. But that would require Protestants to reject Sola Fide, which isn't going to be easy for them to do.

Does the Biblical term "justify" really mean "to declare righteous" (as Protestants teach)?

This post ties into my last post discussing the Biblical teaching on "righteousness." When it comes to justification, Protestant apologists insist that the Biblical term "justify" means "to declare righteous" (in a courtroom setting). More bluntly, Protestants understand the declaration to mean something of the form of "declared by God the judge to have kept the law perfectly." But I think the Protestant argument contains some serious errors and is not built on actual Biblical evidence but rather some unbiblical and faulty assumptions. In this post, I'll show why the Protestant understanding cannot be true and thus should be abandoned.

To begin, the Greek word "justify" appears in about 36 verses in the New Testament. Of all these occurrences, the only time it is used in an explicitly forensic (legal, courtroom) context is in four verses: Mt 12:37; Rom 3:4; 8:33; 1 Cor 4:4. So how do Protestants come to the conclusion that it must mean "declare legally righteous by a judge"? Certainly not from the New Testament evidence, especially since 'forensic terms' don't really appear in places like Romans 3-4 and Galatians 2-3. Turning to the 40 verses of the Old Testament that use the term "justify," there were more occurrences in a legal context than in the New Testament, but still not enough to form any concrete conclusion: Ex 23:7; Deut 25:1; 2 Sam 15:4; 1 Kings 8:32 (same as 2 Chron 6:23); Ps 19:9; 51:4 (quoted in Rom 4:3); Ps 143:2; Prov 17:15. So for a Protestant to say that "justify," especially as Paul uses it in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 2-3, means "declared to be a perfect law keeper by a judge" is by no means an established fact at all.

How does the Bible define "righteousness"?

The Protestant view of justification largely hinges on their definition of "righteousness." In the Protestant view, to be justified one must be righteous, and to be righteous one must have kept all of God's commandments perfectly. It's akin to needing to score a 100% on the SAT, with anything less than 100% being a complete fail in God's sight. In this post I will go through the Bible and show why the term "righteousness" does not mean "perfect law keeper" or anything similar, which in turn will totally undermine the Protestant understanding of salvation and the Gospel. 

The Greek words for "righteous" ("just") and "righteousness" are used a few hundred times in the Bible, so if the Protestant thesis is true, there should be some clear evidence for it. Most of the occurrences uses the terms "righteous" and "righteousness" in passing, so not much can be gleaned from the bulk of the texts. That said, I did not find a single instance where "righteous" or "righteousness" was tied to perfectly keeping the law or commandments. This means that the Protestant definition does not come from the Bible, and rather from traditions of men. Instead, the notion of being righteous, according to Scripture, simply refers to doing good actions (e.g. Mt 6:1; Acts 10:35; Eph 6:1; 1 Th 2:10; 1 Jn 3:7,12) or having an upright quality about your character (e.g. Mt 1:19; Lk 1:6; 1 Tim 1:9; 1 Pt 3:14). Nothing is ever implied about perfect or flawless obedience. 

What does it mean to say Jesus "died for" us? - More problems with Penal Substitution

Calvinists insist that Penal Substitution is proven by the fact the Bible often says that Jesus "died for" us (e.g. 1 Cor 15:3), thinking that this means that Jesus 'took our place' in God's divine 'electric chair'. While that claim is understandable, that is not automatically what we should assume, since to do something "for" another commonly just means "on their behalf," not necessarily in their place. For example, to "pray for" your enemy (Mt 5:44) does not mean you prayed what they were supposed to pray in their place. Rather, it just means you prayed on their behalf (cf Acts 12:5). 

When I looked up the term "for" in Greek, of the 170 times it was used it most often meant something along the lines of "on behalf of," and rarely did it mean "in substitution of" another person.

A discussion on Judeo-Christian monotheism - Steven's Response

Opening Essays: Nick : Steven ::: Concluding Essays: Nick : Steven

*     *     *

I'd like to thank Nick for participating in this discussion, and hope it's allowed the reader to see classical polytheism in a more viable light.

Recall that the resolution was that Judeo-Christian monotheism (as opposed to classical polytheism) is true. In order for Nick to have established this, he must have done a couple of things. First, he'd have to show that a perfect god exists, because if no such god existed, Judeo-Christian monotheism would be false. However, the existence of such a god wouldn't be enough to defeat classical polytheism, since all it claims is that more than one god exists. So, it's entirely compatible with a perfect god existing, just so long as it isn't the only god that exists. Nick’s task was then two-fold: (i) show that a perfect god exists, and (ii) show that no other gods exist. Did he accomplish this?

A discussion on Judeo-Christian monotheism - Nick's Response

Opening Essays: Nick : Steven ::: Concluding Essays: Nick : Steven

*     *     *

In this post I will respond to Steven's case for why the Judeo-Christian God cannot exist.

The way I understand his argument, it is a variation of the age-old "problem of evil" argument in which it is claimed that it is unreasonable to believe there is a God when there is so much evil and suffering in the world. Steven calls his case a "moral argument," with God failing to act in a morally upright manner by letting evils like child abuse take place.

Who killed Jesus? (And why the Resurrection?) - More problems with Penal Substitution

Every Easter the Protestant blogs are full of posts about the Resurrection, and rightfully so. One thing about the Protestant view of the Resurrection of Our Lord has always bothered me though: their view that the Resurrection was essentially nothing more than a 'sales receipt' to show that the Father accepted Jesus' sacrifice. Last year I wrote a brief article on why the Protestant view of Imputation makes the Resurrection of Jesus superfluous, but over the last few days I came to realize another troubling feature about the Protestant view.

If Christ has not been raised... - Mark Shea's crushing apologetics defense of the Resurrection

Not everything Mark Shea writes about the faith is accurate or prudent, so I don't think he should receive a blanket endorsement, but I do have to give credit where credit is due. About 10 years ago he wrote one of the best apologetics defenses of the Resurrection I've every come across. Shea demolishes all skeptical and liberal arguments in true Catholic and Chestertonian fashion. It's truly a classic and must-read for Catholics that's captivating from start to finish.

If Christ Has Not Been Raised....

Christ did NOT descend into Hell on Holy Saturday - The Apostles' Creed must be edited!

I think the Apostles' Creed is wrong when it speaks of Jesus descending into hell. The relevant part of the Creed says: "He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven." Now I am not suggest the Church got something wrong in saying Jesus descended into hell, but rather we did.

The Biblical teaching on "bearing sin" - More problems with Penal Substitution

Nearly every time I bring up the unbiblical and blasphemous doctrine of Penal Substitution to a Protestant they immediately point to texts that refer to Jesus "bearing our sins" (e.g. 1 Pt 2:24; Is 53:11), thinking this means that Jesus took on the guilt and punishment we deserved. Since I've shown that the Biblical term for "Atonement" never involves transferring a punishment to a substitute, I've argued that references to "bearing sin" likely did not mean this either.

In the Old Testament, the notion of "bearing iniquity" normally refers to the situation of a sinner recognizing he has sinned and thus "bears guilt" before God (e.g. Lev 5:1; 7:18; 24:15). Given that, it's understandable for someone to think Jesus "bearing our sin" refers to bearing our guilt and taking the punishment for it. But there is more evidence to consider which shows conclusively that this is not how we're supposed to understand Our Lord's work.

A discussion on Judeo-Christian monotheism - Steven's Opening Essay

 Opening Essays: Nick : Steven ::: Concluding Essays: Nick : Steven

*     *     *

Steven's Opening Essay

I. Introduction

Let theism be the belief that a god exists, atheism the belief that no gods exist, polytheism the belief that more than one god exists and monotheism the belief that only one god exists. 'Classical' polytheism asseverates the reality of gods.

Which strategy I use to establish polytheism largely depends upon my interlocutor. If she’s atheist, I’ll argue that a god exists. However, my opponent already concedes this. What we disagree on is how many gods exist: he believes only one god exists, namely, God. Theoretically, I could try and establish polytheism by arguing that some deity other than God exists. But, I don’t think he does, and will therefore take a step towards polytheism—indeed the only step I can take in this debate—by arguing that God doesn’t exist.

A discussion on Judeo-Christian monotheism (as opposed to classical polytheism)

Opening Essays: Nick : Steven ::: Concluding Essays: Nick : Steven

*     *     *

I received a request from a self-proclaimed “classical polytheist” named Steven to debate the ‘traditional’ notion of ‘God’. Since there are various ‘traditional’ understandings of God throughout the world and history, it is not enough to simply say we believe in God, since this can mean something heterodox and erroneous by those who are misled. Given that, the debate resolution was intended to convey two things. First, that ‘God’ in this debate is to be understood as how Jews and Christians have basically understood monotheism. A Judeo-Christian understanding of God is that God is Personal, One, Almighty (omnipotent), All-Good, All-Knowing (omniscient), and Providential. Since Steven already grants there is some divine entity that can explain questions like how Creation came about, this debate will not focus on typical Atheism-vs-Theism questions, but rather what is a proper understanding of God’s Nature.

While this was originally going to be a formal debate, I told Steven that I couldn't come up with enough information to make it a true debate, so I offered to make this a brief exchange consisting in one Opening Essay and one Rebuttal/Commentary Essay. 

Why Romans 4 is not so promising for Calvinists

As I've said many times, when it comes to Romans 4 Protestants basically truncate the chapter to verses 4:2-8 and ignore the rest of the chapter. This is a shame, for it not only causes an improper emphasis on 4:2-8, but it even results in a mangled reading of 4:2-8. A defining characteristic of all heresies is that they appeal to Scripture in selective sound bites, since appealing to the broader context would expose the error. In this post I'll examine some of that ignored context and show why it does harm to the Protestant appeal to Romans 4.

The passage I had in mind was Romans 4:13-16, coming right on the heels of Romans 4:9-12 (another context routinely ignored by Protestants). In 4:9-12, Paul emphasizes that Abraham's faith was regarded as a righteous act prior to his being circumcised, and that is to prove that justification does not depend on whether one is a Jew or Gentile. That passage shows clearly that Paul was not worried about people trying to save themselves by their own works instead of trusting in Jesus alone by faith alone, but rather that the real problem was Jews thinking themselves superior to the Gentiles and missing the fact justification is apart from the Mosaic Law (Rom 3:28). This sets up Paul for summarizing the heart of his Gospel message: 

13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring - not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

If Paul was talking about some generic "law" and generic "works" in Romans 4, then this passage really makes no sense. But if Paul is talking about the works of the Mosaic Law, then the beauty of this passage really pops out. What Paul is saying is that God granted a saving "promise" to Abraham back in Genesis, and reception of this "promise" was not conditioned upon adhering to the Mosaic Law which was instituted in Exodus. In fact, Paul says if this "promise" came through following the Mosaic Law, then the prior condition of Abrahamic faith would be nullified.

Using the Catholic principle of Scripture-interprets-Scripture which Protestants don't like, I'll now turn to Galatians 3 which brings about this same message in a more plain manner:

15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. 19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.

Paul brings out some very amazing points here. First, Paul points out an important nuance which is that the promise God made to Abraham in Genesis mentioned "offspring" (more accurately "seed") in the singular, not the plural. What most Jews were accustomed to doing is reading texts like Genesis 12:7 as speaking of "offspring" in the plural, as in 'one big family'. Really, this "seed" God promised to Abraham was a future son, Jesus! It is through Jesus directly, and Abraham indirectly, by whom all nations would be blessed (Gen 12:3-4 + Galatians 3:8). So Paul is saying it's absurd and wrong to think that the Mosaic Law, "which came 430 years" after Abraham, would somehow steal that privilege and promise from God's covenant with Abraham.

Thus, the grand realization that Protestants miss is that Paul is not talking about people who are trying to 'work their way into heaven', but rather people who are looking to the wrong covenant to be saved. The Jews thought salvation came through being a member of the Mosaic Covenant, when Paul is saying the Mosaic Covenant never offered salvation in the first place! So even if a Jew kept the Mosaic Covenant, that wouldn't save them (Gal 2:21). Salvation always came through one source, faith in the "seed" of Abraham, Jesus. Protestants made a horrific error by thinking that salvation does come by the Mosaic Law but since we could not keep the Mosaic Law perfectly then Jesus had to keep it perfectly for us!

Paul explains that the Mosaic Law had a temporary function, not an eternal one as Jews and Protestants mistakenly think. The Mosaic Covenant lasted for only about 500 or so years and ended at the Cross. The Mosaic Law was "added" (Gal 3:19) to the picture as God's way of getting mankind ready for the Messiah. The Mosaic Law would formally expose sin ("the law brings wrath") and the need to deal with sin, which simultaneously prefigured and prophesied for us the Sacrifice on Calvary. This is why Romans 5:12-14 says sin and death were in the world before the law was given to Moses and why sin is not formally charged without a law in place.

After realizing this, it is clear that if someone ignores or misunderstands Romans 4:13-16 when reading Romans 4 (and Gal 3:15-19 when reading Galatians 3), then they've missed Paul's entire point! They've come up with "another Gospel" (Gal 1:8), which is unfortunately what Protestantism has done the last 500 years.

Why Protestants reject the idea of having personal relationship with Jesus

The way the typical Evangelical talks you'd think that having a personal relationship with Jesus was the central aspect of the Christian experience. In fact, they're right, but what Evangelicals don't realize is that their Protestant theology of Justification by Faith Alone actually goes directly against the idea of having a personal relationship with Jesus. This post will hopefully be a "light bulb" moment for Catholics and Protestants reading this.

The Pope's first homily: setting the tone?

A hat tip to fellow Catholic Blogger Kevin for pointing out the Pope's first homily today. The full text of the 1-page long homily is here. Let me just say, if Pope Francis is setting the tone of his pontificate with this homily, I'm very excited. Consider these key excerpts:

• We can walk as much we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a pitiful NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ.

• When one does not profess Jesus Christ – I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy – “Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil.” When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.

• ...in walking, in building, in professing, there are sometimes shake-ups – there are movements that are not part of the path: there are movements that pull us back.

• When we walk without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, and when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord. We are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, Popes, but not disciples of the Lord.

When is the last time you heard a homily this straightforward and potent? Maybe JPII and Benedict and our own local bishops have talked like this, but I don't recall such simplicity and hard-hitting truths conveyed in a no-nonsense homily in a long time. In this homily, he completely demolishes the phony "Social Justice" (Liberation Theology) movement, saying that good works without Jesus are a "pitiful" secular help organization. He says those not praying to God and Jesus are deceived and (effectively) praying to Satan and are worldly, completely crushing false ecumenism. And most spectacularly, he says that all the bishops and cardinals surrounding him are "not disciples of the Lord" whomever of them are not professing Jesus in their work. Could his reference to "shake ups" be a veiled indication he is going to clean house? 

Maybe I'm getting my hopes too high for what I'm expecting in his homilies and example, but more of this would be just the thing we're lacking in the Church today!

Is Pope Francis a Liberal out to destroy the Faith?

Everyone is understandably stunned by the news about the election of Pope Francis. The traditionalist Catholic blogosphere was especially buzzing with news, most of which was highly critical of the new Pope. In fact, there were times where things got so out of hand that I had to stop reading the comments, for they had crossed the line of decency and fairness which Catholics should be extending to others, especially to the Holy Father. No matter how 'bad' a Pope were to ever get, he still holds a divine office so high and grand that a real and filial level of respect is due. This is not to say that Catholics are to blindly go along with whatever a Pope or bishop does, but that's very different than the level of bashing and vicious attacks that took place almost immediately after the Holy Father made his first appearance. 

I think there can be a fair and sober evaluation that can be made this early on, but we cannot put too much emphasis on assuming the best or worst. Here are my thoughts (in case anyone cares) about the new Pope:

What did Jesus mean by "It is finished"?

Protestants are fond of saying that Catholics reject "the finished work of Christ" since Catholics reject Salvation by Faith Alone. A popular text they appeal to is John 19:30, which mentions the final words of Jesus on the Cross, "It is finished!" By this, they suggest Christ did everything necessary for our salvation, that He paid everything, all that's left is for us to believe. To deny this, they say, is to deny the Gospel. While at first this might sound convincing, it's an unfortunate and serious distortion of a beautiful text. 

The first thing I'd suggest people think about is that Jesus said "It is finished" before He actually died  and before He Resurrected. If someone were to push this too far in the wrong way, it would end up saying the Resurrection and even the Death itself wasn't necessary. (Note: Calvinists technically deny the sufficiency of the Cross, they just don't realize it.) Given this, there needs to be a more careful approach to the text. 

What many don't know is that there is actually a very good explanation to this text that can be discerned simply by examining the context: 

28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” 29 A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Notice that the focus of this event was not about Jesus paying the full penalty for sin, but rather about fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy. It was when Jesus received the sour wine (vinegar) that He spoke these words, fulfilling the set up from verse 28. In fact, the Greek word for "finished" only appears twice in John, in verse 19:28 and 19:30, under the same verbal form (tetelestai), strongly suggesting the two go together. And the context shows that a few other Old Testament prophecies were also going to be fulfilled (John 19:31-37). So it should really be understood as "It is fulfilled," or more traditionally, "It is Consummated."

The "fulfill" ("consummated") reading also makes better sense of the Greek term used (see how it's used in Luke 18:31 and Acts 13:29). In the 26 verses the word appears in, only twice is it used to refer to payment, and even in these two verse it only refers to paying taxes (Mt 17:24; Rom 13:6) and not some full payment. In virtually every other verse it's used, it means "fulfill" or "conclude". Given this, it is absolutely astonishing the way many Protestants will over-reach with this word to make it suggest a financial transaction of "payment in full" and completely ignore the Biblical evidence available. 

This is not to suggest that the "It is Consummated" doesn't have a deeper significance than just saying "this one prophecy was fulfilled," but rather that Christ's death is to be understood as the Old Testament said it would happen. For example, Protestants love to point to Jesus on the Cross saying "My God, why have You abandoned me," and claim this verse proves the Father's wrath was poured out on Jesus. But any alert reader would know Jesus was intoning Psalm 22, which clearly is speaking of David/Jesus being persecuted by enemies and not being rescued (immediately) by God. This same kind of distortion is happening when Protestants quote "It is finished." In the case of "I thirst," the cross-reference given for this is Psalm 69:21, which is a Messianic Psalm talking about how David was persecuted and insulted by his fellow Jews and now how Jesus is persecuted and insulted by the Jews. Nothing to do with taking someone's punishment or the Father's wrath being dumped on them. 

Hat tip to this Catholic blogger for his work on this verse.

Can those folks "for whom Christ died" be damned? (1 Corinthians 8:11 & 2 Peter 2:1)

Calvinist believe in a doctrine called Limited Atonement. This doctrine is not so much derived from Scripture, but rather from systematic theology: they reason that if Jesus died for everyone, then everyone would be saved, but since everyone is not saved, then Jesus must only have died for a limited number of men. This false dilemma hinges on a fault understanding of the Cross called Penal Substitution, which I've written about frequently. One way to refute Limited Atonement is to show that Scripture speaks of people whom Jesus died for ended up rejecting him and being damned.