There is only one version of Penal Substititionary Atonement.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement teaches that Jesus literally acted as your substitute and was punished by God in your place. Thus the "wrath of God" was poured out on Jesus wherefore it is no longer due on you anymore.
Now you believe that this actually occurred and thus "your sin debt" was paid in full. That is the doctrine you hold to and that is what Penal Substitution teaches. If you don't believe that then you don't believe Penal Substitution.
If your sin debt was "paid in full" then your sin debt is "paid in full" and is thus not due anymore. Thus when you say...
Thus you are stating that if one does not...
1. Admit they are a sinner.
and
2. Accept Jesus as their saviour.
Then the Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not go into effect.
The Bible does not teach anywhere that we are to "admit we are sinners and accept Jesus as our saviour" in order for some substitionary provision to go into effect. The Bible doesn't teach anything like that so WHY DO YOU?
All you have done is butcher what the Bible actually teaches.
Honestly, on what basis do you conclude that a substitional provision goes into effect when one confesses they are a sinner and accepts Jesus as their saviour? You certainly don't get that from the Bible do you? If you did you would be able to quote passages and demonstrate such a teaching clearly, yet you cannot.
So a believer can sin (like get drunk) and then repent and the "Substitutionary Atonement" you speak of is still being applied. You think it is only "not applied anymore" if they don't repent. Yet the Bible plainly states...
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Once we truly come clean with God and are CLEANSED (not some substitution applied like you teach), if we willfully sin (ie. rebellion against God) then no more sacrifice remains but only a certain fearful expectation of judgement.
You don't believe what the Bible teaches but instead hold to something else foreign to the Bible. Why?
You see, your theology focuses on the death of Christ enacting a PROVISION which you TRUST IN and then that PROVISION is only in effect so long as you are on the repent side of this sin/repent/sin/repent cycle you believe in. It is really typical Wesleyian garbage because he taught bascally the same thing.
Instead of reading the Bible and reflecting on what it actually says, you approach the Bible with a bias of theology which you received from theologians. That is one of your problems. You uphold the traditions of men over the truth that is set before you. You don't even seem to be interested in seriously investigating these things either.
The Prodigal Son did not sin/repent/sin/repent. The Prodigal Son rebelled ONE TIME and forsook his father and his ways. The Prodigal Son then came to his senses ONCE and decided to go back to his father ONCE. The Prodigal Son was then returned to favour ONCE. There is no sin/repent/sin/repent in that parable. There is no substitution in that parable either.
In your view the Prodigal Son could have rebelled every now and again, so long as he repented each time then he would still remain saved. How is that any different to what the other sin defenders teach? How is it really any different at the fundamental level?
You all still teach that you can sin and not surely die. You just throw a sin/repent/sin/repent cycle into the equation in an attempt to reconcile the scriptures which speak about obedience being mandatory.
You seriously need to look at what the Bible actually teaches and cleanse your mind from the theological traditions which you still hang on to.