Good point. That's why I don't accept the Penal Substitutionary Theory as the foundation upon which I base my understanding of the Atonement.
Here's Biblical Theology's Jeff Paton again:
We have insuperable philosophical and ethical difficulties in the way of receiving the statement that the guilt of the race was transferred to Christ. Character is personal, and cannot be transferred. Sin is not an entity, a substance which can be separated from the sinner and be transferred to another and be made an attribute of his character by such a transfer. Sin is the act or state of the thinker. If sin cannot exist in the abstract, it cannot be punished in the abstract. If it cannot be transferred to another, it cannot be punished in another, though a man may voluntarily suffer to save another from punishment.Here's another website dealing with the subject.While it is true that Jesus is our substitute, He is our substitute truly and strictly only in suffering, not in punishment. Sin cannot be punished and pardoned also. (in a court of law, the judge has only two options if you are guilty, he either pardons or he punishes, he cannot do both. So if sin was paid for on the cross, then the sin that He died for was punished and therefore, there is no need for God to forgive since the cause of justice has already been satisfied.)
In his presentation of the Governmental theory, Dr. Steele sees no division in the Trinity on Calvary’s Cross. The atonement is a provision and not a payment. The whole Trinity working together in God’s plan to reconcile man, there was no separation on the cross, for "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19.
Further Steele says:
There is no punishment of sin except in the person of the sinner who neglects so great a Savior. Sin was not punished on the Cross. Calvary was the scene of wondrous mercy and love, not of wrath and penalty.
What is the inevitable outcome of the doctrine that sin was punished on the cross? Whose sin? If it be answered, that of the whole human race, then universalism emerges, for God cannot in justice punish sin twice.
Now there are several reasons why I have been unable to preach this theory of the atonement (that Jesus was punished on the cross).
1. It is not exact justice to punish the innocent.
2. Guilt is personal and can not be transferred.
3. It leaves no room for a literal and true pardon from sin,….. Pardon, being a gracious remission of deserved penalty, cannot be required after the penalty has been fully endured by the substitute. In essence he is saying, if it’s paid, there is nothing left to forgive.
4. The punishment of the innocent....would be wrong for man and right for God?
5. For if the sins of all men were punished in Jesus Christ, no man can be justly punished, either in this world or in the world to come, for sins already expiated by suffering their penalty. I lay no foundations for the delusive doctrine of the final salvation of all men.
In the Governmental Theory the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ are an atonement for sin as a conditional substitute for punishment, fulfilling, on the obligation of sin, the obligation of justice in moral government. The advantages of this theory are:
1. It can be preached without mental reservations.
2. It avoids the irrational idea that Christ was literally made sin and a curse.
3. It makes no dualism or collision between the divine Persons, the Father punishing the Son.
4. It satisfies the Protector of the divine law. Personifying the law and saying it was satisfied is wrong, Only persons can be satisfied.
5. This theory (the Governmental theory) is Biblical.
The Reformed Calvinist argues that by the very nature of atonement all must limit it in some sense—Calvinists and Arminians. But this is not so. The Calvinist must limit atonement to the elect or have Universalism, since all for whom Christ died are irresistibly saved. So to escape the scourge of “limited atonement,” it is claimed that Arminians “limit” atonement, too!The New Testament theory of atonement does not assume, along with the Calvinist, that atonement and benefits are one and the same. It does not assume that atonement is expiation, i.e., that all for whom He died will be saved, but that the atonement (hilasmos) is the provision for all men, and that reconciliation (katallagê) and redemption (apolutrõsis), etc. are the benefits; and that the benefits are conditional and not irresistible. This requires no limitation whatsoever.
Thus, that all for whom Christ died are irresistibly saved necessitates “limited atonement.” But that atonement is an unlimited provision for all men as an act of God knows no limitations, is therefore universal in scope and intent, and cannot be limited. The benefits of the atonement —salvation and sanctification—are for whosoever will, therefore conditional, and must not and cannot be construed as a “limitation;” for the conditions call upon “whosoever will” to meet the standard of Divine appointment with respect to the benefits. Accordingly, “limited atonement” and the “conditional benefits” of the atonement for “whosoever will” differ infinitely in nature and can never be brought together; for they stand in antithesis, the one to the other.
It is therefore an utter absurdity to claim the “limited atonement” and the “conditional benefits” of the atonement are equals in that both necessarily “limit” the atonement!
We conclude, then, that “limited atonement” is limited necessarily; and that the “conditional benefits” of the atonement are unlimited necessarily!
For the rest of this article and another article similar to it, I would suggest looking here and here.
So under this theory just who does pay for the sins? Perhaps you would like to join your Catholic breathern in Purgatory..