There are the cold and clinical 'latins' who are all about the 'law court' and 'satisfaction' and 'penal substitution'.
And there are the warm and generous eastern types who speak of 'trinity' and 'adoption' and 'theosis'.
Or if you're on the other side:
There are the faithful and biblical evangelicals who remember God's 'justice' and 'wrath' and 'propitiation'
And there are the wishy-washy liberals (i.e. everyone who's not an evangelical) who never face the problem of sin and judgement.
So which is it?
Matt Finn's post and Sam Allberry's comment show the way forward. The penal self-substitution of Christ (which is very clearly taught in the Scriptures) only makes sense with a strong doctrine of the Trinity and of union with Christ. Only if the Crucified One is God Himself intercepting His own judgement, and only if I am crucified with Him does it hang together.
It's just a real pity that those churches that are strong on penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) are often weak on trinity and union with Christ. And in that context PSA gets horribly twisted. And so many who oppose it say to themselves "If it's PSA or the trinity, I'll stick with the trinity."
If that were really the choice then I don't think I could blame them. But it's not the choice.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ...18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. (Eph 2:13,18)
We've got to hold together the legal and the familial - PSA and trinity/union with Christ.
Perhaps we need to remember JI Packer's three word summary of the New Testament: "adoption through propitiation". And let's hold on equally tightly to both.