You know, in all seriousness, without speaking for anyone else (since these threads have no other participants) I should just say that when I look at the atonement writings of the early churchmen, Menno Simons, Anselm or Aquinas, I seldom find something I would feel the need to refute or oppose. Maybe the exception would be some of the early church writings where a ransom was paid to Satan or God tricked Satan into exceeding his authority - but even then, I can see why they might have thought what they did.
And when I read guys you like, for instance Menno Simons, he seems to have no problem saying "The innocent One bore the burden of the whole world, blotted out and made atonement with His crimson blood for the guilt of all, as the scriptures declare, I restored that which I had not taken." He is speaking in judicial terms. Then though he immediately says "Jesus undid the disobedience of Adam and all his seed and by His painful death restored life." Now is that recapitulation, or bearing sin with us as opposed to instead of, or was there an aspect of taking on the guilt of all. Probably all those things. When not doing theology, as all these early writings as well as scripture illustrates, the way to convey truth is to state the various aspects in the various situations and contexts when they are mentioned - without trying to have a complete theological explanation necessary in every instance. But is it not legitimate to ask if it is possible to understand dealing with "guilt" resulting from lawlessness and iniquity and knowing that a violent death and shedding of blood is what the remedy entails - to not have punishment be involved. In fact, I think that looking at every aspect of the atonement from scripture as well as all the writings available one will eventually always come up with penal substitution as being an aspect or facet or motif of the atonement understanding.
So like I said, when I read scripture or churchmen writing about Christ's work and they have varying aspects of emphasis it doesn't bother me. What we need to know is that Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures. But it's not that we will face an examination to where our salvation is in jeopardy if we don't have a complete understanding. But contrary to what you have said, I have not found any of the early churchmen or theologians who are good guys so to speak, who actively refute penal substitution like it is a false doctrine. Only you, and Socinus, and the modernists. I listen to modern guys who I respect and think are decent people who claim to reject penal substitution but I get conflicting answers. In the video debate between William Lane Craig and Greg Boyd, Greg says that he thinks they are not so far apart as he thought. So, I don't know what else to say on this subject. I think I have said that before but I have seen no new information that would change my mind. What you will do is come on with condescending posts and then, as you always do, say something and then abruptly close the thread. That is rude and it shows that you don't care enough about my beliefs to really even consider them.
