Leaving Munster asks “Can there be a non-violent atonement?”. At least he explains a little what his understanding of the alternative could be to the classical view of the atonement.

But to him, and to Wink (sorry, I havent had time to fully interact with Wink yet) I would just say at the moment, please interact with Romans, especially chapters 1 and 3 and make sense of them for me from your perspective. I will get around to interacting more fully in the coming days, and I hope that we can all discuss these matters in a humble godly manner.

• Wrath and the atonement- the debate continues
• Critiquing Penal Substitution
• Attacking the atonement from the other side?
• More on the Atonement
• Today Jim Elliot Was Killed (1956) and God turned it around for good
• Barnabas Part Five – Mistakes turned round for good
• Poacher turned gamekeeper – interviewed by Paul Schafer
• Jollyblogger’s 1000′th post
• C. J. Mahaney on the Cross
• A more detailed report of the Chalkegate meeting
• The Atonement in Romans 12-14
• THE ATONEMENT DEBATE – Steve Chalke Confirms He Does Not Believe in Penal Substitution
• Parableman, sorrry make that Wink thinks he is NOT a neo-liberal after all
• The Atonement – Romans 6-7 and Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Defining Penal Substitution