I have been trying to work through the idea that on the cross Jesus was paying our individual sin debt by taking upon himself our individual punishment for our individual sins. I emphasize “individual” in order to separate it from the historical church view that on the cross Jesus suffered as an atonement for human sin. I am questioning the origin surrounding our adherence of the Reformed position (here by Reformed I mean product of the Reformation, the Protestant position, as this is also a position held strongly by John Wesley) that Jesus actually took our individual punishments. This is expressed in many ways. In Calvinistic churches, this is probably most visible in the theological motif of the divine ledger system (were the heavenly courtroom or divine justice takes the place of the OT sacrificial system) and expressed vividly in defenses for limited atonement. In non-Calvinistic churches, this is expressed in the idea that on the cross God was separated from Christ as Jesus took upon himself our sins. Sometimes it is just left as a vague idea (e.g., every sin that I commit adds to the punishment Christ experienced on the cross). J.I. Packer introduced a lecture with the observation that Reformed theologians “in their zeal to show themselves rational, became rationalistic. Here as elsewhere, methodological rationalism became in the seventeenth century a worm in the Reformed bud, leading in the next two centuries to a large-scale withering of its theological flower.” His charge is that these scholars viewed God’s work of reconciliation to be “exhaustively explicable in terms of a natural theology of divine government, drawn from the world of contemporary legal and political thought.” (J.I. Packer, “The Logic of Penal Substitution,” 1973). What I am addressing is this worldview that places the atonement within the scheme of divine justice. I am leaning towards the idea that the theological worldview of the Reformation, heavily influenced by the RCC (in both acceptance and rejection), is the egg through which the worm has hatched. I am questioning why we come to certain conclusions (not necessarily interpretation, but commentary). If anyone is willing, and I understand if no one is (this is sometimes the case when dealing with tradition), I would like to discuss the issue of Jesus taking our actual punishment individually. I understand that this view is necessary in some’s interpretation of “limited atonement.” I understand the arguments from a heavenly legal courtroom perspective. What I am trying to gather is why exactly we hold this scheme when it is neither itself biblical per se, nor is it necessarily contemporary.