What is the basis for believing that the wrath of God is not an accommodation?

It is widely accepted that the Bible contains many [*accommodated*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodation_(religion)) descriptions of God; the finite human mind cannot comprehend the infinite God, so he has revealed himself to us in ways which we can understand, even though the true reality of God transcends what the scriptures say. For example, most Christians believe that the scriptures teach [the immutability of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity#Immutability) , so the times when the scriptures say God changed his mind (such as Exodus 32:14) are understood to be accommodations. The wrath of God is believed by many Protestants to be a real attribute of God, but an accommodation by many other Christians. The wrath of God is important because it forms part of the foundation of [penal substitutionary atonement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution) . What is the basis for believing that God's wrath is not an accommodation? Good answers will give exegetical and logical arguments why certain verses should not be interpreted as conveying only accommodated depictions of God's wrath.