This started as an email to Wink, and he encouraged me to post it. I don't really have the patience at the moment to edit it too carefully, so if something seems out of place or not fully explained, remember how it started. I'm not convinced by Wink that there's no substitutionary element to the atonement, but I'm convinced that his view is orthodox, evangelical, and not obviously in conflict with scripture. I still haven't commented on his last post, but I have things to say and will start with them shortly. I did want to say some positive things about what he's doing and make some suggestions to him about further places I'd like to look on this issue besides what I've had access to, and that's what the email was about. Here it is, slightly modified to be for public consumption (and no longer directed to him in the second person).
I really think Wink has hit on something no one's clarified before with separating the penal element and the substitution element. Most of the defenses of substitution seem to be responding to people who reject the penal element entirely, so there's very little I can find that even deals with the substitution element at length. They'll maybe have a paragraph on it and then spend lots of time arguing that Paul's terminology really is forensic, which Wink agrees with, so it doesn't refute anything he's saying. Then at the end they'll say it must be substitution with no further argument.
D.A. Carson seems to be more careful, bringing up substitution only when 'anti' is present, but Wayne Grudem's stuff on it in his Systematic Theology and some of the theological encyclopedia articles I read and much of the argumentation in a recent book on the atonement was simply assuming that once you show a legal sense you must have substitution, which Wink has shown not to follow because of the separability of the penal element and the substitutionary element. I'd be interested to see if the older stuff by Bruce Waltke and Leon Morris makes the same mistake. I haven't looked at Morris' book at all, and that's supposed to be one of the key texts on the subject. I also still haven't reinstalled the IVP reference works that I have on CD-ROM, so I didn't get to them yet. One of the sources I was looking at today referenced an article in one of them, and I want to read it tomorrow if I have time.
I'd also be really curious to see what Charles Hodge says about this sort of thing, but I have no access to him, and his stuff is so dense and so voluminous that it might be hard to find what he says about any particular thing very easily unless you're already well-versed in his work. The real place to look to see if someone has seen that the penal element and the substitution element are separable is the debates at the time of Anselm or so, since the substitution terminology seems to have been new then. If we could find penal terminology without that and then show that Anselm really saw himself as adding something to the discussion as it stood, then I think Wink's claim is established in terms of the development of theology historically, because penal substitution would be an innovation over an already existing forensic view of the atonement that didn't involve substitution.
As I said above, I'll deal with the details of Wink's positive proposal in the comments of the Penal Union post.