Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a good thing. Is it the most important facet of Christ's self-sacrifice on the Cross? I don't know, but it's essential to what He did, and it seems to be always under attack.
Everybody's trying to invent a kinder, gentler, more logical hermeneutic. They recoil from the penal substitutionary explanation of Christ's death on the cross, calling it divine child abuse. They call it a cold piece of business, or a legal fiction. So they have to invent something that makes sense to their framework.
They also conveniently forget the fact that we were all vile rebel sinners before God got to us. "No one does good, not even one" (see Romans 3:9-18).
"Christ crucified" is a stumbling block to earthy Jews, foolishness to heady Gentiles (1Co 1:23).
How else do you explain Romans 4:3 along with Romans 5:9-10?
These people make the strawman objection to a position of a wrathful vindictive God whose attitude must be changed by Jesus, whereas the best Reformed or Dispensational theologians will be quick to tell you that "For God so loved the world, F18 that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16) or "But God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:10). This last verse is right on the heels of being saved from the wrath of God. And Romans 5:1 makes a big deal of now having peace with God.