This article responds to recent criticisms of the doctrine of penal substitution as atonement for human sin. The author's main focus is the publication of The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann from a British perspective, and views expressed by Joel B. Green from an American perspective. He notes four main charges brought against penal substitution. The first accusation is the charge that penal substitution represents a mistaken doctrine of God by ascribing retributive justice to him. Next, it claims that the doctrine conflicts with the doctrine of the Trinity. A third claim is that penal substitution grows out of modern Western individualism. The fourth accusation is that penal substitution is guilty of doctrinal isolationism.