There are many who offer poor arguments, and dishonest arguments. I believed Penal Substitution Theory correct for most of my life and hated to see those arguments.Honestly I have not.
I didn't mean that I make him an unfortunate victim. But there is a popular take on the atonement that does. I wanted to make sure you weren't going there as many who reject penal substitution do and have. I am glad that you don't.
Yes. I would just say that when Jesus suffers the wages man has earned and was made sin while never sinning - since he was made sin and it was in relation to our sin then he is our substitute and penal substitution is a very plain and proper interpretation of this. Every penal substitution advocate that I have carefully read so far includes every one of the things you have mentioned above in their explanation of the atonement. I am referring specifically to Edwards and Owen, but even Baxter, who is accused of having a modified governmental theory or a hypothetical universalism clearly has the shed blood of Jesus being applied to us for the forgiveness of sins. Edwards also was accused of teaching a governmental theory but if you read him he tied it directly to penal substitution.
Like I said. If you can show this in the case of any Reformed theologian let me know, and for this subject I include Wesley, and Edwards. I mean really, Calvinism is most often accused of making everything part of God's redemptive plan, down to every minute detail of every action of every creature. I don't think it is wrong to focus on what the scriptures focus on which would be the shedding of blood by Christ and what this means to us who have found ourselves desiring redemption. How can a man be right with God, upon realizing, probably because of supernatural enlightenment, that he is a sinner and alienated from a God who is holy by nature and has a reaction to sin that involves wrath.
What you said above is good enough for me as I'm no theologian. But if Jesus suffers the wages I have earned, and was made sin (while himself never sinning) I would take as then that was my sin. If propitiation is involved then wrath of God is involved and it was due to what I did then I am looking at penal substitution plain as day.
I get what you are saying. I have discussed this with others who hold Penal Substitution Theory and have found we sometimes talk past one another. I'm not stuck on labels.
For example, several times I asked those believing in Penal Substitution Theory to defend that it was God who punished Jesus or our sins laid on Him. What I got in reply was that they did not believe that, but they believed He died for our sins (which I believe).
Even more often I got that result when asking if Jesus experienced God's wrath. They answered "no", but at the same time thought that they believed Penal Substitution Theory.
There are many assumptions people accept as Biblical which are actually not in the Bible - Jesus experiencing God's wrath, Jesus suffering punishment instead of us, Adam dying spiritually, etc. Some of thesecwe inherited from the Catholic Church in a revised form via the Reformation. Some of these have been ingrained in our Christian culture for centuries. These have constituted traditional beliefs in many Western denominations. Tradition is something that is very difficult to overcome. Although moving towards a more biblical view, IMHO, is beneficial I don't know that it is necessary.