Chalke in Trouble, McLaren Next?

Adrian Warnock makes note of the EA's concern over Chalke's denial of the substitutionary penal atonement (which is echoed by McLaren).  They (Chalke & McLaren) claim the penal (punishment) aspect to substitutionary atonement was added by the Reformers.  They claim it is not to be found in Anselm, for instance.  I will supply some choice selections from Anselm later (the book is at home).

But… in researching Arminianism for SS, I ran across this from the New Dictionary of Theology, under Arminianism.

"To the Contra-Remonstrants it appeared that they followers of Arminus had adopted a Semi-Pelagian view of grace, …, were introducing a conditional gospel which threatened the atonement and justification.  Some of the fears of the Contra-Remonstrants appear soon to have been fulfilled.  … The commitment to universal atonement led followers of Arminius to oppose the penal substitutionary view of the atonement held by Reformed orthodoxy whereby Christ actually paid the penalty of all the sins of all his people and thus effectively made atonement.  For Arminianism, since Christ was held to have suffered for everyone he could not have paid the penalty for their sins, since all are not saved.  His death simply permits the Father to forgive all who repent and believe.  It makes salvation possible but does not intrinsically atone for anyone in particular.  … Hugo Grotius, an Arminian, was the first clearly to expound the governmental theory of the atonement."

So… Chalke is a descendant of the Remonstrance in the Netherlands.  Their denial of a particular atonement led to a denial of a penal atonement which essential is a denial of the atonement.  Chalke and McLaren are clearly in the same theological family as Finney.  And to hold to a Christianity without Jesus bearing the curse for our sins and transgressions (Galatians 3 & Isaiah 53) is to hold to a Christianity that cannot save.