You are adding nuanced meanings and definitional specificities that I don't know how to respond to because I don't see anyone else, anywhere doing this. It makes no sense to me at all.
I understand some of the differences between Aquinas and Owen for instance, but it seems to me that the corrective part was concerned with Aquinas belief as a good Catholic that the atonement only covered sins prior to coming to faith - in order to leave room for penance and so on. Also, Owen clearly said that there were two aspects of the Christ's death, imputation of the guilt and sin of man to Christ and imputation of the merits of Christ to man. So that is not the difference because they would have agreed at that point. I can produce the quote.
That makes no sense at all. Christ bearing our sins instead of us bearing our sins is substitution by definition. "Instead of" of course is implied when Christ bears our sins. The idea that for substitution to occur we would not have to bodily die (if that's what you meant above) is not correct either and is covered often as a topic by those who advocate penal substitution but it involves further discussion on what death is referred to here.
Once again. This makes no sense. If you can read scripture and cannot see that the wrath of God and condemnation abides on men who don't come to Christ then I don't know what to say. And it is perfectly legit to ask regarding this "I wonder why I can come to Christ". And of course multiple scriptures then discuss the work of Christ in obtaining the forgiveness of our sin by his own blood. I see no reason for continued discussion as I really can't follow your reasoning. It may be my own lack of theological understanding but I am aware of that enough to try to always cross reference claims people make on here and with you I am unable to do this.
The term "penal substitution"
I am not adding anything. The issue, however, may be thay we are speaking about theology and many are unfamiliar with theological terms (they are simply using a dictionary to mash words together). I can, however, explain and I believe you will understand.
1. In the 12th century Anselm developed satisfaction theory. He focused on honor as this was important to the ideology of his day. Basically, Adam robbed God of honor and Jesus restored that honor on our behalf.
2. In the 13th century Aquinas reformed Anselms theory and replaced honor with merit. This was a major step towards Penal Substitution Theory. Aquinas wrote extensively about substitution and punishment in his theory of Atonement. Aquinas developed the idea that an innocent person could be punished as a substitute for a guilty person provided both parties are willing. BUT this punishment is not the punishment the guilty person would recieve (it was a satisfaction). It would be unjust to punish an innocent person as if he were guilty, but just to impose a penalty.
3. In the 16th century Aquinas' theory was reformed into the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. "Penal Substitution" refers to the type of substitution. Here it was reasoned that Aquinas was incorrect because justice is final and objective. The judge cannot forgive, or reduce a penalty, because the crime left a debt to justice that must be paid. Therefore the substitute must be face the full penalty demanded by justice.
If you steal a loaf of bread to feed your daughter then justice demanded that you face the penalty due a thief. Another could, if both parties and the judge agreed, go to jail in your place but somebody had to pay the debt. And this was instead of the other person receiving that penalty (satisfaction was a type of forgiveness, at least in part, as the full payment is not demanded).
This type of substitution is called "penal substitution".
Did you notice what you added?
I wrote that Jesus bearing our sins, God laying our sins on Him, is not substitution.
You replied "That makes no sense at all. Christ bearing our sins instead of us bearing our sins is substitution by definition".
Then you argued that "instead of us" is implied. This is an issue. For over fifteen centuries Christians did not see "instead of us" as being implied. You are inferring, making an unwarranted assumptiin.
What historical Christianity taught was that Jesus shared in our state. Jesus bearing our sins meant that He experienced the oppression from the powers of evil as a consequence of sin that we will experience. They believed that He "shared our infirmity" with and alongside us instead of in our stead.
Call for honesty
This seems to be a strawman smokescreen to detract from what I have posted: " If you can read scripture and cannot see that the wrath of God and condemnation abides on men who don't come to Christ then I don't know what to say."
The reason is I never wrote, said, or thought that God's wrath and condemnation abides on men who don't come to Christ.
You just made that up and attributed it to me.
I was just trying to explain to you what I believe, why I stick to the written Word of God on this issue, the terms used, etc. I was not trying to force you to believe anything. That's between you and God.
Why did you attribute to me things I never said or wrote?
But only to give my short perspective on this quote.