Eastern Orthodox apologist Alexander Renault has put up a section of his book, Reconsidering TULIP (a decent critique of Reformed theology) where he offers a pretty good critique of Penal Substitution. One can find it here. One of the many points he makes is:
Renault is spot-on. According to the apostle Paul, the Father raised Christ for our justification:
I have discussed some of the "proof-texts" for this doctrine, including John 19:30, on this blog. Further, for a good refutation from both the Bible and Christian history, see W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012). The author makes the following point about how penal substitution makes nonsense of the ongoing intercessory work of Christ (Rom 8:34-35; Heb 7:25; cf. 1 John 2:1-2; Heb 2:17) on p. 249 n. 13:
9. Penal substitution makes the resurrection unnecessary
According to penal substitution, salvation is made possible only by a legal exchange. We are counted “just” and “forgiven” only because god’s wrath has been poured out on Christ instead. Since hell is said to be a punishment for sins, and since our sins have already been punished in Christ, we are free to go to heaven. The resurrection then becomes simply a nice bonus, nothing more than a “proof” that Christ is divine.
Renault is spot-on. According to the apostle Paul, the Father raised Christ for our justification:
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for (δια here has a causal sense [i.e. for the sake of]) our justification (Rom 4:25)
I have discussed some of the "proof-texts" for this doctrine, including John 19:30, on this blog. Further, for a good refutation from both the Bible and Christian history, see W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012). The author makes the following point about how penal substitution makes nonsense of the ongoing intercessory work of Christ (Rom 8:34-35; Heb 7:25; cf. 1 John 2:1-2; Heb 2:17) on p. 249 n. 13:
To understand the heavenly intercession of the Son on our behalf as the propitiation of the Father, as Michael does, generates a significant problem of internal coherence for penal substitution. According to penal substitution, the primary purpose and effect of the death of Jesus was to propitiate the wrath of God on account of the sins of humanity. As it is written elsewhere, because Christ is “a priest forever” in heaven, he “always lives to make intercession” and is thus “able for all time to save those who approach God through him” (Heb 7:24-25). Heavenly intercession on our behalf is thus the ongoing vocation of the risen and ascended Christ. So, if the purpose and effect of the Son's intercession is to propitiate the Father's wrath, then the Son is continually doing in heaven at the throne what was to have been fully accomplished on earth at the cross. The cross would thus seem to have been ineffective, or at least incomplete, in accomplishing its primary purpose of saving humanity from divine wrath. Michael's [a Reformed apologist the author is responding to] interpretation of 1 John 2:1-2, although given in defense of penal substitution, effectively undermines it.