thistle93
Puritan Board Freshman
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
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