Pages

Monday, March 30, 2009

Penal Substitution Debate – Answers to Questions from Negative

Penal Substitution Debate – Answers to Questions from Negative


Affirmative Answer to Question 1

Nick’s first question was a puzzling question. Rather than cross-examining me on positions I had advocated, he asked me to defend the teachings of Hodge, Boettner, MacArthur, Calvin, Luther, Luther again, and Grudem, not all of which are particularly systematic (while those who are have extensive defenses of their own on this subject).

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Penal Substitution Debate – 5 Questions from Negative

Penal Substitution Debate – 5 Questions from Negative


-->


QUESTION 1 FROM NEGATIVE
What Scripture teaches about Christ's sufferings directly impacts the validity of Penal Substitution, because if Christ didn't receive the proper type and degree of punishment which the elect deserved then the doctrine is unworkable and thus false. The following quotes from various respected Reformed sources describe the sufferings Jesus deserved and underwent:

Penal Substitution Debate – Answers to 5 Questions from Affirmative

Penal Substitution Debate – Answers to Questions from Affirmative


-->
Response from Negative to Question 1
The First Question begins by asking why I don't accept the various proofs put forward by you for penal substitution. I feel it necessary to quote part of the first question:
When I [Turretin Fan] present something that would support penal substitution you claim it’s not talking about God’s wrath being appeased, but something else. I see no consistent standard being applied from your side, so that I could see how to persuade you to accept that the atonement sacrifice (Christ) does turn away God’s wrath through suffering the punishment (death).

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Penal Substitution Debate – 5 Affirmative Questions to the Negative

Penal Substitution Debate – 5 Affirmative Questions to the Negative

Question 1 from Affirmative

In your opening statement, you described the penal substitution position as: “God's Wrath (due to sin) must be legally satisfied (i.e. sin cannot go unpunished) in order for sinful man to be forgiven and justified.”

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Negative Rebuttal - Penal Substitution Debate

Penal Substitution Debate – Negative Rebuttal Essay
By Nick
1) I will first deal with the Affirmative Constructive Essay. It seems to me that in that essay my opponent (this term I use in the context of a formal debate, not in the pejorative sense) was more focused on proving the Biblical truth that atonement was necessary, rather than the specific doctrine of Penal Substitution. Because of this, most of the essay was written broadly enough that I as a Catholic would find little to object to. Given this, I will now call attention to the few parts I feel do require some commentary.

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.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Penal Substitution Debate - Affirmative Constructive Essay


--> Penal Substitution Debate - Affirmative Constructive Essay
By Turretin Fan
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Penal Substitution Debate - Negative Constructive Essay


Penal Substitution Debate
Negative Constructive Essay
By Nick
Penal Substitution is grounded on the Protestant notion that justification is a legal event. As such, God must deal with sin in a legal manner, which (to Protestants) means sin cannot go unpunished without violating the very integrity of God's Holiness and Justice. God's Wrath (due to sin) must be legally satisfied (i.e. sin cannot go unpunished) in order for sinful man to be forgiven and justified. The “penal” aspect consists of both the temporal and eternal punishments due to sin which are to be punished in the guilty party, while the “substitution” aspect consists in the sinner's guilt being imputed (transferred) to the account of another, a substitute, in this case Jesus Christ, who then receives the punishment the sinner deserved. The Resolution of this debate sums up this concept: God imputed the guilt of the sins of the elect to Christ. In other words, the Wrath the elect deserved for their sins was instead poured out by the Father onto Jesus.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Penal Substitution (Atonement) Debate!

I am pleased to announce that a Reformed Protestant Apologist named "Turretin Fan" has agreed to debate me on a very important theological issue: The Atonement.
The classical Protestant view of the Atonement is popularly termed "penal substitution" (penal meaning punishment), a teaching which I as a Catholic believe is an incorrect view of the Atonement (and thus not taught in Scripture).

The agreed upon resolution, schedule and rules for the debate are as follows:

Resolved: God imputed the guilt of the sins of the elect to Christ.
Affirmed: Turretin Fan
Denied: Nicholas E. (Nick)

Debate Start: Jan 4.

1. Affirmative Constructive Essay and Negative Constructive Essay - Due Jan 18.
2. Affirmative Rebuttal Essay - Due Feb 1.
3. Negative Rebuttal Essay - Due Feb 15.
4. Affirmative Cross-Examination Questions to the Negative - Due Mar 1.
5. Negative Cross-Examination Answers and Negative Cross-Examination Questions to the Affirmative - Due Mar 15.
6. Affirmative Cross-Examination Answers to the Negative - Due Mar 29.
7. Negative Concluding Essay - Due April 12.
8. Affirmative Concluding Essay- Due April 26.

Debate End: April 26.

All Essays are 5k words maximum, while each of the 5 Questions are 1k words maximum. The word limits include any citations and quotes.

Rules:
(1) Each person will post their own essays on their own blog. The opponent can then cut & paste the opposing response.
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/

(2) Comment boxes for our Essays will be closed.

(3) Citing church documents, theologians, and other such references is allowed, though the opponent is not necessarily bound to defend any claims other than his own.

(4) Formatting essay text (ie size, bold, underline, italics, etc) is allowed.