# Definite Atonement & Substitution?



## thistle93 (Mar 29, 2012)

Hi! Can one actually not believe in a Definite (limited) Atonement and still subscribe to a penal Substitutionary theory of the atonement? I do not think so. 

Here is why. 1) That if Jesus was a substitute for all those in the world, even those who end up in hell, He failed miserably. 
2) That His sacrifice was not sufficient and that man must give the atonement power by faith. 
3) That if Jesus was ones substitute, this would mean all would be saved because God will no punish sin twice.

Would love to hear your thoughts. Are these two positions mutually exclusive? If not, I would like to hear why. If so, this means that a lot of evangelicals who say they believe in substitutionary atonement in fact do not because they do not believe in a definite atonement? Though most espouse substitutionary what theory would most non-calvinist espouse? Governmental, like early New England theology (ie... Jonathan Edwards Jr.)? For His Glory- Matthew


----------



## Jash Comstock (Mar 29, 2012)

I agree with you. It's pretty oxymoronic to say you hold to Penal Sub. Atonement but deny particular redemption. For Jesus to truly be the substitute would mean that he took all the wrath of God for the substitutee. If he took the entire wrath, the substitutee would no longer be under condemnation.


----------



## MW (Mar 29, 2012)

Usually something more is made of faith in order to synthesise "definite" and "universal" atonement. In the reformed system the office of faith is limited to appropriation and is part of the purchased benefit. In the modified theory propitiation is the purchased benefit but requires faith to make it effective. Such a modification accredits to faith an efficacy for salvation which the Scripture always ascribes to the work of Christ alone.


----------

