Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: 3 Views

Perspectives

by Andrew David Naselli (Editor), Mark A. Snoeberger (Editor), John S. Hammett (Contributor)

Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement presents a point-counterpoint exchange concerning God’s intention in sending Christ to die on the cross. All three contributors recognize a substitutionary element in the atoning work of Christ, but disagree over the nature and objects of that substitution. Carl Trueman (Westminster Theological Seminary) argues that Christ’s atoning work secured the redemption of his elect alone. While infinite in value, Christ’s death was intended for and applied strictly to those whom the Father had elected unconditionally in eternity past. John Hammett (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) argues that Christ’s atoning work had multiple intentions. Of these intentions two rise to the (1) the intention to accomplish atonement for God’s elect and (2) the intention to provide atonement for all mankind. Grant Osborne (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) argues that Christ’s atoning work provided atonement generally for all mankind. The application of that atoning work is conditioned, however, on each person’s willingness to receive it.

Genres: Theology

256 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 2015

About the author

Andrew David Naselli (PhD, Bob Jones University; PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is associate professor of New Testament and theology at Bethlehem College & Seminary in Minneapolis, Minnesota and an elder of Bethlehem Baptist Church.

Reviews

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Atonement is kind of a big deal in Christian theology. Very loosely defined, it is what Christ did on the cross making it possible for unholy people to be reconciled to a holy God. One of the questions surrounding the atonement of Christ is the extent to which it applies. That is what this book is about. Perspectives on the extent of the atonement does not dabble in other controversies surrounding the atonement. It's focus is not what the atonement means or how it as accomplished, but rather who is it who receives the benefit of Christ's substitutionary and atoning work.

The format of the book is the familiar point/counterpoint format. On a personal note, next to the personal relationships nothing has had as big an influence on my own theology than theology books which present multiple views and allow for the authors to respond to each view. This has done more than merely present the pros and cons of each view, it has taught me that earnest God fearing believers can love the same God, look at the same text and be just as committed to the authority of scripture and still see things differently. This has had a tremendous influence on my own demeanor when discussing an issue with another believer in which there is disagreement. It has also led me to appreciate the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. This is because I have seen first hand how the spirit of Christ can be elevated above a theological dispute by respecting those who disagree on the "non essentials". If two people can agree on the authority of the scriptures they have a built in fence in which to explore theology without turning wayward.

Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement is a fine example of this being played out in the real world. The three presenters have sharp disagreements and yet are amiable and share a love for one another and for Christ.

It will come as no surprise that I agree more with Carl Trueman's presentation than the other two. However, I gained a greater respect for the non- Reformed position by hearing Osborne's articulation of the general application of the atonement. This is the value of this format. Perspectives on the Atonement is a great choice for those who wish to gain a greater understanding of a position on the atonement which they do not hold.

Click here to purchase
Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement
from Christian Books or Here to Purchase on Amazon

This review originally appeared on my blog at http://www.teleiaphilia.com

[Jack Hayne · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good introduction to the debate. At the expense of future employment, which I'm unlikely to find anyway, I tend to side with multiple intentions of atonement as laid out by Hammet. However, I don't cling to it dearly. I can offer someone a pardon, and they can choose to stay in jail. I cannot find a better description of the offer of the gospel. It further does not denigrate the pardon.

Each of the authors did a good job laying out their views and explaining why they disagreed with the other's views. Again, as the editor often points out, the debate is not centered on the atonement itself but instead on the doctrines surrounding it and how to define "all" or the "world."

This could have been a spectacular volume if each author had consistently presented their argument, allowing for better clarity throughout the volume. It could have been interesting to have a universalist in the volume.

94% We can all agree he died for the sins.

[Evandro Junior · Rating 5 out of 5]

Li e gostei. Carl Trueman defendeu muito bem a perspectiva que mais concordo: expiação definida. EM minha opinião, a visão de Osborne (expiação ilimitada) foi a segunda mais bem elaborada, enquanto que a de Hammet (múltiplas intenções) se mostrou pouco convincente. Continuo com o mesmo ponto de vista, porém, ainda mais consciente das dificuldades e dos pontos fortes (que são mais numerosos desta perspectiva). O livro tem um capítulo do Dr. Andy Naselli, professor do Seminário Teológico da Igreja Batista Bethlehem (igreja onde Piper é o pastor); Naselli trabalha traz uma ponderação sobre questão do amor, paciência e humildade entres os estudantes na discussão deste importante e controverso tema. Excelente livro. Recomendo demais!

[Mike Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great introduction on the subject. The two best essays (as far as presentation goes) were the universal atonement and multiple intentions view.

[John Brackbill · Rating 5 out of 5]

A helpful book with multiple not limited or unlimited authors.

[Nicholas Abraham · Rating 5 out of 5]

A helpful read on the subject

The essays are great and informative. The thing I like the most about the book is the conclusion and the heart behind the book. A call away from schism over this issue is greatly needed and is given in this book.

[Ian Minielly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Did Jesus die for all, for the elect, or for all, but only those who believe. These are in the most general terms the three perspectives discussed in the book. If you have not spent much time in this arena and heard these arguments this book would be a good place and resource for it. As painful a read as it is.

The book starts with the Limited Atonement view of Reformed Theology. Like you would expect, instead of arguing for Limited Atonement, which has become a toxic phrase, the author in defense of Limited Atonement decided it was best to change the name of Limited Atonement to Definite Atonement and get rid of the toxicity of the idea God foreordained most of humanity to hell by only picking a handful of people to be saved based on God's sovereign will. So that is how the book starts and the defender of this view then goes through the same talking points and same Scripture references, nearly always getting it wrong in defense of the world view he prefers.

The good news is, this was the low point of the book. The book starts out so horribly because the Limited Atonement view is indefensible without straining like a gnat to pass an elephant. In the rebuttal phase the Arminian defender absolutely shredded the compete Reformed fellows position and left it laying there naked and obvious for all to see. When I read his rebuttal I thought his positions and arguments for the Arminian position would be excellent. Then he fell on his face.

The argument for the Arminian position seemed to spend half his pages defending the Reformed position as almost right, but not quite. Instead of just saying why the death of Jesus was sufficient for all, but only efficacious for those who believe. The author does say this eventually, but only after bowing and weeping over the Reformed position and all those who hold it so dearly. I found his defense of the Arminian position lackluster and weak. He was much better equipped or prepared to shred the Reformed than defend the Arminian, which he did, but I think he could have done better. Note I said he could have done better, not me.

The final view was the complete General Atonement and Universal position, which I amazingly found the best argument for. I found the fellow arguing for Universal/General Atonement did the absolute best job putting his view forth. I was surprised to agree with the majority of his viewpoint and effort, without agreeing wholly in the Universal Atonement of all being saved. I do not think that is a defensible position, but he did a great job defending it.

I want to give the editor credit. He admits the amount of ink, podcast time, and internet posting over the extent of the Atonement far exceeds its need or value within the Christian community. I would argue the blame for this mostly falls on the Reformed camp, but what does it matter. This book did a good job of presenting three different viewpoints on the Atonement and touched on some of the others not emphasized, but I think the choices for defenders, while fresh to my knowledge as I did not know of them prior, left their positions weak.

I get it, the Reformed position is always going to be weak because yio have strain Scripture so hard to try and see its presence. But I found the proponent of it struggled to make it viable, but in his defense he is arguing for a position that is not viable so it is always going to look bad because it is bad. So in that regard, maybe he did as as good a job as possible considering the positions own merits are the cause of its weaknesses.

The Arminian fellow did a great job arguing against the other positions, but was not strong in defending his own and the General fellow did the best job with his position.

[Jon Cheek · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really helpful discussion of three main (Protestant) views of the extent of the atonement. All three scholars uphold the same basic viewpoint on the nature of the atonement (penal substitution as the heart of the atonement), but they disagree on the extent of the atonement. Trueman did a fine job presenting the Limited/Definite Atonement view, but he suffered from the typical LA problem of not having direct Scriptural support. Trueman acknowledges that there is no single text in Scripture that teaches limited atonement but that "it is the result of the cumulative force and implications of a series of strands of biblical teaching."

Osborne presents the Arminian view of unlimited atonement.

Hammett did an excellent job presenting and supporting his "multiple intentions" view. Hammett identifies an objective provision of atonement whereby God's wrath is satisfied and God is able to welcome the sinner into his presence, as well as a subjective application of the atonement by which the sinner's heart is changed and the sinner comes to Christ. The objective and subjective provisions are separated chronologically, and there is no reason the objective provision cannot be universal while the the subjective application is particular. Hammett's view seems to be able to best account for the passages that speak of the atonement in universal terms while also upholding the certainty by which Christ secured salvation for the elect through his atonement.

Overall, a really helpful resource. The Hammett portion is a must-read.

[Daniel Chao · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good interplay from 3 perspectives, with humility from all three parties. I have my homework cut out for me.

Nothing like it that I've seen so far out there. I appreciate the tone of all 3 contributors and see how all 3 perspectives have their support.

[Philip Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Carl Trueman though

[William N · Rating 1 out of 5]

Difficult read

This was a difficult book to understand as it talked on a higher level than most I’ve read. It needs to be a bit simpler for understanding sake.

[John Kight · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are essentially two characteristics of a productive debate dialog: (1) a focused topic of conversation, and (2) a healthy and respectful discussion. Like many of the previous volumes in the Perspectives series, Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: Three Views executes this reality masterfully.

The discussion begins with a helpful introduction to the debate by Mark Snoeberger, and concludes with a much appreciated summary by Andrew Naselli. Snoeberger ushers the reader into the discussion by detailing the importance of the topic, or lack thereof (p. 1), as well as the primary question of discussion—“For whom was Christ a substitute?” (p. 6). This is an important point to note because the book is narrowly focused upon the substitutional aspect of the atonement within the views of atonement that affirm penal substitution, and thus is limited to a specific vein of the Protestant conversation (p. 6). Naselli closes the book with a brief summary, including helpful charts, and identifies “10 Ways to Create Unhealthy Schism over the Extent of the Atonement” (p. 216–227). This is a helpful and much appreciated reminder as the reader exits the written discussion.

Between the introduction and conclusion the reader finds three essays and the corresponding responses by the opposing authors: (1) Definite Atonement, (2) General Atonement, and (3) Multi-Intentions Atonement. First, Carl Truman defends the Definite Atonement (“limited atonement”) position, arguing that the question of the extent of the atonement is merely an inference deduced from its nature and efficacy (p. 21). For Truman the debate rests heavily upon the nature of Christ’s mediation, “specifically as it relates to the unity of the intention that undergirds his priestly work of sacrifice and intercession” (p. 22). Second, Grant Osborne defends the General Atonement (“universal atonement”) position, arguing that, “Christ has died sufficiently for all but efficiently for those who find faith in his atoning death” (p. 81–82). Osborne presents a solid defense of his position, discussing both the positive and negative arguments for General Atonement. Third, John Hammett defends the Multi-Intentions Atonement (“hypothetical universal atonement”) position, arguing that the atonement is both universal (or general), particular (or limited), and cosmic. Hammett offers a fitting contribution to the discussion and the placement appears intentional, as much of Hammett’s essay provides an additional perspective upon the earlier arguments presented by Truman and Osborne.

In short, Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: Three Views provides what it promises to deliver. The discussion is narrowly focused and the authors stay within this framework extremely well. Regardless of ones level of investment, this book will prove to be a beneficial introduction to the ongoing dialog. The only complaint (apart from the theological disagreements intentionally avoided in this review) is the lack of a bibliography for further investigation on the various positions. Of course, this information can be found in the footnotes, which I would highly recommend that the reader avoid overlooking.

**I received a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review**