@JonC . This is why people get frustrated with you. Numerous people have posted articles showing the ECF's statements that they (and I) believe are the beginnings of penal substitution. You are free to reject that but you cannot deny that the statements are there. You do not have the right to define something and then pretend to refute that.
It is. We have been over that 100 times. Our sins are a barrier. They put us in a position that requires reconciliation with God. And they personally offend God, leading to a reaction called wrath. That requires a penal aspect for reconciliation to be complete. Because of God's nature he ultimately will not forgive without satisfaction. That is sometimes described as a debt we owe. That would lead to taking care of that being described as a payment. Or, it can be described as requiring justice be done in punishment. Nothing by way of explanation is complete by itself but it helps give you the picture. The Old Testament sacrifices helped give you the picture too, but were not complete in themselves either by explanation or by what they really accomplished.
Romans 3:24-25 and 1 John 2:1-2. But you don't accept this. I don't know why you won't but this is at the point of being deliberate. When you have our own individual sin being discussed, as in 1 John, and then you have Christ as being able to take care of this why? Because he is a propitiation for our sin. Our sin, which he propitiates. You have penal substitution. It is a false claim to demand some kind of different wording in order for it to be acceptable to you. If indeed, traditional Christianity chooses to not discuss what Jesus specifically did but the Reformers go into that, is that wrong? (I'm not conceding that ECF's did ignore that but just following your logic.)
Now think for a moment. How can I describe an estranged relationship in need of reconciliation. It is either due to offense or to some kind of debt being owed but not paid. You tell me how else you can describe this. Because this gets to the crux of the matter. You either use those terms, or you have to change the need for reconciliation to be a matter of misunderstanding - or you have to say that what we are really looking at is not a need for reconciliation at all, but more like a solving of a condition or a curing of a disease. Now you tell me how else you can describe what our problem is with our relationship with the Almighty without using any of those terms.
