I've not blogged about all the controversies that have been happening recently around the subject of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). I have, however, been having some rather lengthy conversations on the 'Ship of Fools' Christian discussion board with individuals who support PSA.
As a result of these conversations, I have developed a theory about one central point of disagreement between supportors of PSA and non-supporters of PSA. I throw it open here for any comment anyone might want to make. (And I speak as a non-supporter of PSA.)
I think that one of the central points of controversy is whether forgiving a wrongdoing actually names the wrongdoing as wrong. I say that it does; PSA supporters seem to say that it does not. A related point of controvery from the other direction is whether a wrongdoing needs to receive a punishment in order to be ontologically 'wrong'. PSA supporters seem to think that 'without punishment, wrongdoing has not been named.' I disagree.