What is the difference between vicarious and substitutionary atonement?
I was just browsing around checking for odd theological beliefs held by our puritan church fathers. I read that Richard Baxter held to a penal and vicarious atonement, but not substitutionary atonement. There must be a slight difference, but just wondering.
Oh, what got to me to thinking about that is that I see on the Shout Box someone named McKinley asking 'Was J.C. Ryle a 4 pointer?' Since it is at the bottom of the Shout Box, there was no answer. I couldn't find one with my browsing. I did find out that Ryle would not be a puritan as he lived afterwards.
1. Richard Baxter held to a heretical view of the atonement.
2. vicarious: Suffered or done by one person as a substitute for another.
substitutionary: The act of putting one thing or person in the place of another.
3. J.C. Ryle did not hold to Definite Atonement but rather Amyraldianism or a form of it.
Now, just to add some clarification to the two terms, "vicarious" and "substitutionary". Theologically there is distinction between the two albeit the dictionary definitions look similar. Substitutionary refers to the personal aspect... He took the place of (Gk:
huper), i.e., He went to the cross for those whom the Father predestined to save and as one who was personally guilty. Vicarious refers more to the actual penal judgment and penalty; God's eternal wrath was put upon Him and He had to endure physical death.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
