You are very wrong. I have not dismissed Penal Substitution Theory (I held the theory for a long time, even taught it as correct when teaching theology). I said, and will say again, that the readon I reject it is simply the fact it is not in God's Word.Christ's work of redemption has a lot to do with the concept of Jesus suffering God's wrath, as countless posts have explained to you. What you do is just dismiss everything everybody else says without being able to back up what you say.
My position is in God's Word. I have repeatedly posted verses stating my position.
Yours is not in God's Word. You believe it is what God's Words teaches, but cannot provide any passage that states even the basic that Jesus suffered God's wrath, or even suffered instead of us suffering. You "prove" that the Bible teaches Penal Substitution Theory by providing what you believe a verse teaches.
You are also wrong about my comment stating that NT Wright rejects Penal Substitution Theory because he can't stand the idea Jesus suffered God's wrath as being a dishonest assumption is inappropriate. It is factually.
NT Wright has explained why he sought a different idea of Jewish justification. He stated this while developing his theory. He said that he realized Jews did not, in fact, believe they were justified by works.
Whether that is a correct observation is irrelevant. The reason Wright changed his position had nothing to do with God's wrath.
@JesusFan posted a dishonest assumption about another believer. That is wrong, lazy, and bearing a false witness. People do that because it is easier than dealing with what other Christians actually believe.
Now.....don't get me wrong....some DO reject Penal Substitution Theory for that reason. But it is a stupid reason (Jesus is God, it isn't some offense to have Jesus experience God's wrath. It's just unbiblical).