Does anyone else find it quite odd that Arminians/non-Calvinists (some are a mish-mash hybrid) often fervently cling to a substitutionary understanding of the atonement?
This very point was probably the main reason I finally became convinced of particular redemption. I just don't see a scenario in which a universal atonement works with penal substitution.
My theological background is mostly Baptist, and I have seen this throughout the non-Calvinist thought in that realm. I have never heard a non-Calvinist Baptist espouse a non-substitutionary understanding of the atonement, even though it is inconsistent with their other beliefs.
Has anyone else noticed this?
This very point was probably the main reason I finally became convinced of particular redemption. I just don't see a scenario in which a universal atonement works with penal substitution.
My theological background is mostly Baptist, and I have seen this throughout the non-Calvinist thought in that realm. I have never heard a non-Calvinist Baptist espouse a non-substitutionary understanding of the atonement, even though it is inconsistent with their other beliefs.
Has anyone else noticed this?