Not all Christian dogma and tradition, by a long shot. There have been many atonement theories in Christian history, going back to the 2nd century – the main opponents to the Gnostics back then {cough} didn’t usually go with the idea of God choosing someone to sacrifice to appease His wrath while letting the guilty go free. (The Christus Victor model, in several versions, was far more prevalent, but also some other theories.)
And not even all penal sub theories necessarily have that idea in mind, though that’s admittedly a popular and prevalent version of PSA even today. The people who take the popular version are inadvertently contradicting trinitarian theism, though – and non-trinitarians who take it aren’t doing their theologies any favor either. At this time the Roman Catholic Church seems to be taking the much more nuanced penal solidarity version, where Christ suffers with all the unjust so that all the unjust may (if they choose to) rise with Christ, the goal being not to reconcile the Father to sinners (which the popular version of PSA typically involves) but to reconcile those who are unjust to the Father (which happens to be how the scriptural grammar runs every single time the topic is brought up in the texts, not-incidentally. The recent RCC Great Catechism, I have noted, works hard at being consistent about this: God in all Persons of deity reaches out in reconciliation to sinners already from the beginning, doers of injustice are who should be reconciled to God and to their victims.)
There is another closely related version of penal atonement theory connected to the Abrahamic Covenant where God (as the Son) voluntarily took Abraham’s place (as Abraham’s eventual descendant via the Incarnation) in the covenant vow with the Father. On this theory the Son voluntarily accepts the penalty of anyone anywhere being unjust, thus being also unfaithful to God (which would happen anyway even without the covenant) and thus breaching the covenant (since by the Incarnation, all rational creatures ever created by God count as Abraham’s family). The Son pays the price of all unjust creatures breaching the covenant, not to satisfy the wrath of God (which would be the Son’s own wrath against sin) but in order to continue maintaining the covenant agreement between the Father and the Son – that agreement being to bring all Abraham’s descendants to righteous behavior eventually. The Son’s voluntary death is an enacted symbol of that agreement and commitment. (Historically this has not been a popular version of PSA since it obviously would mean universal salvation must be true, but there are a couple of New Testament texts that reference the idea specifically.)
Another closely related version of penal atonement theory is connected to the notion that God’s voluntary self-sacrificial action is how any not-God reality, including not-God creatures (with their own derivative rationalities), comes into and continues staying in existence at all. Insofar as any creatures suffer as a result of that action, whether accidentally (since Nature as a not-God entity goes about its own God-supported mechanical business, allowing created persons to have a neutral field of reality in which to have relationships with one another at all) or intentionally (by unjust actions against other persons), God voluntarily and omnisciently and omnipresently suffers with all victims as well as with all (eventually) punished victimizers, the cross being the specific historical enactment of that suffering. God suffers with the innocent (such as those slain by injustice) as well as with the guilty.
But, if all you’re interested in is shooting at a popular straw man version of Christianity (one that many Christians have set themselves up to be straw men about), then none of that, and none of the other ways Christians have regarded the sacrifice of Jesus, is going to matter. You’ll just (rightly) shoot at the easy target and then go away satisfied that surely there can be no other options within Christian theology.
Most of us on this forum, though, will remember Jesus’ saying from GosJohn, that the only just judgment of the greatest possible judge, is the judgment that intends to bring all unjust people to be just to one another instead (thus truly honoring the Son as well as the Father). 
Sonia (SLJ) was affirming a sacrifice, and a redeemer. (Which is why she said “Savior? Yes Sacrifice? Yes”.) She just didn’t go on to talk about sacrifice specifically, but addressed part of the context of the verse you quoted – which does talk about Jesus, given by the Father, redeeming/ransoming unjust people into just people, and which uses sacrifice language (the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb etc.)
Denying that the affirmed sacrifice was to divert the punishment of evil men onto an innocent Son, is not at all logically the same as denying the sacrifice (much less denying the ransom/redemption). Sonia only denied a common claim about the purpose of the sacrifice.
